mmmmnim 


Ummmim 


■*■ 


ft*  if  h 


sift  f 


mm  811  mi 

I  ill 


ills 


mm 


■mm 


m  mm 


•*~*\* 


J  tA 


HOMERIC    SOCIETY 


HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

A  Sociological  Study  of  the  Iliad 
and  Odyssey 


BY 


ALBERT  GALLOWAY  KELLER,  Ph.D. 

•  «  » 

INSTRUCTOR    IN    SOCIAL    SCIENCE    IN 
YALE  UNIVERSITY 


LONGMANS,   GREEN,  AND   CO. 

91  AND  93  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 

LONDON  AND  BOMBAY 

I902 


Copyright,  jgo2, 
By  Longmans,  Green,  and  Co. 


All  rights  reserved 


GENERAL 


UNIVERSITY  PRESS  •  JOHN  WILSON 
AND    SON    •    CAMBRIDGE,    U.S.A. 


Pa 

M-  _ 
INTRODUCTION 

THE  following  study  starts  out  from  two  main 
working-hypotheses  ;  first,  that  the  evidence 
of  Homer  concerning  the  "  Homeric  Age  "  is  direct 
and  accurate,  and  second,  that  this  evidence  has  to 
do  with  a  single  culture-epoch  and,  in  the  main, 
with  a  single  people.  /  Primarily,  the  Iliad  and 
Odyssey  give  the  impression  of  spontaneity  and 
an  entire  freedom  from  artificiality  or  historical 
*  reconstruction  "\  there  also  appear  to  be  no  strik- 
ing incongruities  ^between  the  two  epics  or  between 
parts  of  the  same  epic.  In  the  course  of  this  study, 
it  is  hoped  that  further  grounds  for  these  hypoth- 
eses may  appear,  and  that  the  position  taken,  in 
/regarding  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey  as  direct  documen- 
tary evidence,  may  be  further  justified,  j 

The  treatment  of  Homeric  social  factors  and  ten- 
dencies has  been,  first  of  all,  systematic ;  based  upon 
sociological  categories  which  owe  their  formulation 
to  a  comparative  study  of  human  societies  and  their 
development.1  Arrangement  has  been  dictated  en- 
tirely by  considerations  of  systematic  classification 

1  Several  staudard  authors  have  been  followed,  as  the  references 
will  show,  but  the  whole  treatment  of  the  essay  is  modelled  on  the 
as  yet  unpublished  system  of  Professor  Sumner.  Only  occasional 
reference  can  be  given  this  system  under  the  title  of  Unpublished 
Lectures. 


101928 


vi  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

and  sequence.  The  same  considerations  have  pre- 
vented the  citation  of  a  multiplicity  of  instances  in 
the  text ;  those  regarded  as  most  characteristic  and 
suggestive  have  been  quoted,  and  corroborative  and 
slightly  variant  instances  have  been  referred  to  in  the 
notes.1  For  the  sake  of  perspective,  unessential  detail 
has  been  sacrificed,  and  the  full  content  of  passages 
selected  for  citation  has  not  always  been  developed. 
In  cases  of  variation  of  evidence,  that  testimony  has 
been  accepted  which  appeared  most  in  consonance 
with  the  general  social  setting  of  the  age  and  people. 

.For  reasons  that  would  appeal  to  any  student  of 
ethnography  or  culture-history,  the  writer  has  been 
led  to  emphasise  the  importance  of  Eastern  influ- 
ences upon  Homeric  society.  It  is  scarcely  conceiv- 
able that  later  Greek  civilisation  was  a  suddenly 
evolved,  indigenous  product ;  the  development  of  a 
high  civilisation  from  semi-barbarism,  like  that  of 
a  superior  variety  of  fruit  or  grain  from  a  wild 
variety,  is  a  matter  of  long  ages  and  tedious  selec- 
tion. On  the  other  hand,  however,  there  is  nothing 
to  prevent  the  rapid  increase  ojTSransplanted  fruit 
of  the  highest  grade,  or  of  transferred  civilisation, 
if  the  ground  is  good. 

There    is   no    evidence    in    (Jonler   to   disprove 

I  the  presence  of  strong  Eastern  influence  upon  the 

Greek  society  of  his  time ;  Yather  is  such  influence 

1  A  single  note  will  often  include  references  to  several  allied 
points  in  the  text,  the  order  of  the  references  or  groups  of  refer- 
ences corresponding  to  the  sequence  of  the  argument  on  the  page 
above. 


INTRODUCTION  vii 

emphasised  and  set  forth.  And  what  is  more  likely 
on  general  principles  than  the  speedy  dissemination 
and  increase  of  civilisation  in  Greece  and  toward 
the  West,  given  two  centres  of  advanced  culture 
such  as;  Chalda?a  and  EgypVand  a  nation  of  alert 
and  adroit  traders  such  as  the  Phoenicians  ?  Until 
archaeological  finds  shall  be  proved  contemporary 
with  Homeric  evidence,1  and  clearly  subversive  of  it, 
the  hypothesis  of  Eastern  influence  upon  early 
Greece,  put  forth  by  some  of  the  older  writers  such  as 
Movers,  can  scarcely  be  overthrown.  The  presump- 
tion is  always  in  favour  of  normal  versus  catastrophic 
evolution  ;  upon  those  who  assert  the  latter  rests  the 
burden  of  proof  until  the  existence  of  the  irregular 
can  be  convincingly  established.  In  any  case,  the 
final  solution  of  these  vexed  questions  of  origins 
and  development,  if  it  ever  comes,  will  not  be 
entirely  clear  of  indebtedness  to  those  preceding 
hypotheses  to  whose  inadequacy  it  gives  the  coup 
de  grdce. 

The  Teubner  text  (Lipsiae,  MDCCCXC)  has  been 
used;  references  to  the  several  books  are  given  by 
number,  the  large  Koman  numerals  referring  to  the 
Iliad  and  the  small  ones  to  the  Odyssey. 

1  "...  If  we  apply  our  minds  calmly  to  compare  the  series  of 
facts  obtained  from  Mycenean  sites  on  the  one  hand,  and  from  the 
Homeric  poems  on  the  other,  we  shall  find  that  many  of  the  dis- 
crepancies are  not  trivial,  but  are  really  such  as  those  on  which  we 
base  wide  distinctions  in  race  and  time,  as  we  study  the  history  of 
other  peoples  and  other  regions  of  Europe  and  Asia."  Ridgeway, 
1,82. 


viii  HOMERIC  SOCIETY. 

Acknowledgments  are  here  due  and  are  grate- 
fully rendered  to  Professor  William  G.  Sumner, 
Professor  Thomas  D.  Seymour,  and  Mr.  John  G. 
Adams,  of  Yale  University,  for  their  valuable  sug- 
gestions and  criticisms  touching  the  matter  and 
form  of  the  present  volume.  A.   G.   K. 

New  Haven,  Nov.  1,  1901. 


CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction v 

Chap.  I.     Ethnic  Environment 1 

II.     Industrial  Organisation    ....  29 

III.  Religious  Ideas  anj>  Usages  .     .     .  101 

IV.  Property 189 

V.     Marriage  and  the  Family     .     .     .  200 

VI.     Government,  Classes,  Justice,  etc.  248 

References 315 

Indices 

Representative  Passages  —  Iliad      .     .     .  319 

"                     "               Odyssey       .     .  322 

Subject  Index 327 


Hi 


UNIVERSITV 


OF 

UfOWW 


HOMERIC   SOCIETY 

CHAPTER    I 

ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT 

THE  character  of  a  society,  like  that  of  an  in- 
dividual, is  a  product  of  environment.  v  One 
may  distinguish  the  share  to  be  attributed  to  race- 
reaction  on  environmental"  influences  of  the  past 
(i  e.,  race-character)  from  the  portion  he  allots  to 
direct  and  contemporary  reaction  on  present  condi- 
tions ;  or  he  may  subdivide  in  such  manner  as  to  ex- 
hibit in  contrast  the  parallel  influences  of  physical 
and  of  societal  environment.  The  main  body  of  the 
following  chapters  is  intended  to  show  what  manner 
of  man  the  Homeric  Greek  was,  to  what  stage  in  the 
conquest  of  physical  nature  he  had  attained.  It 
seems  impossible,  however,  to  do  justice  to  his  re- 
lations with  his  ethnic  environment  without  first 
calling  attention  to  the  general  character  of  the 
peoples  by  whom  he  was  surrounded. 

A  minor  interest  attaches  to  those  remoter  tribes 
in  comparison  with  whom  the  Homeric  Greeks  felt 
themselves  superior  in  culture  and  the  arts.  Evi- 
dence in  the  poems  goes  to  show  an  acquaintance, 


2  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

by  actual  contact  or  through  rumour,  with  several 
peoples  whose  character  bears  the  stamp  of  crude- 
ness  and  barbarism.  Before  considering  the  influ- 
ences of  the  great  Eastern  empires,  it  would  not  be 
out  of  place  to  examine  some  of  these  barbarous 
peoples  and  observe  the  attitude  of  Homer  toward 
them. 

Far  in  the  North  dwell  those  tribes  which  live  on 
the  milk  of  horses  (Hippomolgoi),  together  with  the 
strong  Mysian  fighters  and  the  Abioi,  "the  most 
just  of  men." x  Possibly  the  Scythians  are  meant, 
in-  at  least  the  first  two  cases.2  The  epithet  applied 
to  the  Abioi 3  may  refer  to  their  greater  care  and 
fear  of  the  gods  and  ghosts,  or  possibly  it  may  con- 
nect them  with  some  "  peace-station  "  in  the  North  of 
which  the  Phoenicians  had  brought  a  vague  rumour.4 
The  etymology  a-bioi  (bowless)  or  a-bia  (peaceful)5 
might  afford  some  support  to  the  latter  explanation. 
It  is  a  commpn  thing.in.  Homer  for  far  away  tribes 
to  be  loved  by  the  god^.  The * Aithiopes  (dark 
men)  are  often  hosts  of  the  gods  and  the  Gigantes 
and  Cyclopes  are  "  near  "  to  them.6  Perhaps,  as  sug- 
gested above,  the  formal  piety  of  these  tribes,  their 
stricter  attendance  to  the  requirements  of  sacrifice 
—  evidences  of  a  livelier  fear  and  a  more  punctilious 
propitiation  —  caused  the  Greeks  to  regard  them  as 
"  most  justified." 

1  XIII,  5-6.  6  Friedreich,  Real.,  art.  17. 

2  Naegelsbach,  H.  T.,  274.  6  1, 423-424 ;  i,  22  ff ;  vii,  205- 

3  See  p.  299  f  for  use  of  "  dikaios."      206. 

4  Lippert,  Kg.,  I,  459  ;  473. 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  3 

The  vagueness  of  the  location  of  these  peoples 
suggests  that  they  existed  in  Homer's  mind  only  as 
he  had  heard  of  them  through  rumour.  The  like  is 
the  case  in  regard  to  the  Pygmies  and  the  Cim- 
merians.1 A  dwarf-lij^  people  does  live  in  the 
South  of  Egypt  whither  the  cranes  fly,  and  certainly 
there  are  lands  in  the  West  noted  for  their  thick 
clouds  and  fog.  Confused  geographical  rumours  led 
also  to  the  conception  of  the  Lsestrygonians.2 

These  tribes  are  not  entirely  crude ;  the  Lsestry- 
gonians have  an  assembly  and  the  Cimmerians' a 
town.  It  is  only  when  we  come  to  the  troglodytic 
Cyclopes  that  we  find  a  negation  of  all  bonds  of 
union  and  culture.  The  Gigantes  are  classed  with 
these  in  contrast  to  the  mild  Phaeacians.3  Again, 
there  are  those  listless  vegetarians,  the  Lotus-eaters,4 
and  ignorant  inlanders  who  do  not  know  the  sight 
of  oar  or  the  taste  of  salt,6  the  rough-voiced  Sintians 
of  Lemnos,  dear  to  Hephaestus,6  and  robber  tribes 
of  Thrace  and  Thessaly.7 

What  lack  of  culture  means  to  Homertcan  be  best 
seen  in  the  case  of  the  Cyclopes.  To  a  great  degree 
they  are  devoid  of  a  providence  of  life,  and  neither 
sow  nor  reap,  trusting  .to  luck  for  crops.  They 
have  neither  councils  nor  hereditary  precedents,  but 
dwell  with  their  flocks  in  caves  on  the  summits  of 
mountains,  the  various  patriarchs  ruling  their  own 

1  III,  6ff;  xi,  13-19.  *  ix,  84  ff.      '  XIII,  298-302. 

2  Cf.  Keane,  Eth.,  245  ;  x,  82  ff.      6  xi,  122-128. 

8  vi,  4  ff ;  vii,  59 ;  205-206.  6  I,  594  ;  viii,  284  ;  294. 


4  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

wives  and  children  and  paying  no  attention  to  each 
other.1  They  have  no  ships  nor  ship-builders  and, 
consequently,  no  external  communications.  Their 
courtyards  are  built  with  huge  uncut  stones,  with 
tall  pines  and  mighty  n|ft-  They  pasture  their 
flocks  alone,  are  tremendous  in  stature  and  haughty 
in  mind  —  "  like  not  so  much  to  men  as  to  Gigan- 
tes."  2  They  have  no  horned  cattle  —  merely  sheep 
—  and  greedily  feed  on  cheese,  milk,  and  whey. 
They  care  nothing  for  the  gods  and  boast  them- 
selves stronger  than  they ;  they  dishonour  the  gods 
by  cruelty  to  guests,  whom  they  even  devour  raw, 
as  wild  beasts  are  wont  to  do.  They  are  armed 
with  clubs,  are  dull  of  mind  and.  like  most  savages, 
they  drink  not  for  pleasure,  temperately,  but  for 
the  beastly  satisfaction  of  gross  appetites.3  In  short, 
they  present,  as  the  following  pages  will  show,  an 
exact  antithesis  to  what  the  Greeks  of  Homer 
regard  as  culture  and  piety.  <§ 

Turning  now  to  the  nations  of  the  East,  this 
somewhat  contemptuous  attitude  of  the  Greeks  is 
found  to  be  quite  reversed.  Kespect  and  wonder 
before  what  are  to  them  superhuman  achievements 
are  varied  only  by  a  natural  irritation  at  being  force*} 
to  endure  the  discomfitures  of  imposition  and  deceit 
The  attitude  is  quite  that  of  the  more  ignorant  and 
plundered  people.  The  Iliad  and  Odyssey  have, 
therefore,  for  the  science  of  society,  this  peculiar 

1  ix,  106-115  ff.  2  ix,  187-189;  x,  120. 

8ix,  219-223;  275-276;  288-293;  319;  355  ff. 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  5 

and  exceptional  interest,  that  they  are  the  record  of 
the  contact  of  two  unequally  advanced  culture-stages, 
viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  the  lower  of  these 
stages.  The  great  empires  of  the  East  and  South- 
east were  pouring  forth  their  products  and  traders 
along  that  line  of  Western  movement  which  has 
been  the  road  of  advancing  culture  through  the  ages. 
Nearest  to  the  doors  of  the  older  culture-states, 
attractive  to  their  emigrants  and  merchants,  was 
Greece,  the  land  of  a  people  ready  and  eager  to 
learn,  and  possessed  of  a  splendid  receptivity  in  so 
far  as  a  less  cultured  people  may  receive  the  civilisa- 
tion of  an  older  and  more  polished  nation.  The 
civilisation  of  these  wonderfully  developed  races 
was  just  beginning  to  exert  its  influence  with  power 
upon  Greece  when  Homer's  Iliad  and  Odyssey  came 
into  being. 

The  field  in  which  the  influence  of  the  Eastern 
nations  was  most  effectively  extended  was  that  of 
the  industrial  organisation.  Modification  of  sec- 
ondary social  forms,  such  as  the  system  of  property- 
holding,  marriage,  government,  and  class-division 
has  always  involved  the  utmost  pain  and  effort 
and  has  seldom,  if  ever,  been  genuinely  effected. 
Apart  from  conquest  and  consequent  amalgamation 
under  coercion  the  direct  influence  of  an  alien 
society  upon  these  forms  is  but  slight.  They  are 
dependent  almost  exclusively  upon  slowly  chang- 
ing economic  conditions,  anjj  are  really  and  per- 
manently   altered    only    through    modification    of 


6  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

society's  economic  basis.  Upon  religion  also  exter- 
nal peoples  would  have  less  influence  than  upon 
this  industrial  organisation.  Eeligion  is  conserva- 
tive where  the  industrial  organisation  is  progres- 
sive ;  it  has  been  found  impossible  to  transfer  the 
spirit  of  a  highly  developed  religion  to  peoples  of 
a  much  lower  civilisation,  while  products  and  pro- 
cesses pass  with  some  easa  Yet,  considering  the 
similarity  that  prevailed  in  all  the  Eastern  cults,  it 
is  not  hard  to  see  how  there  might  have  been  mu- 
tual modification  here,  and  incorporation  of  detail. 
The  politic  trader,  as  represented  by  the  Phoenician, 
never  suffered  his  religion  to  stand  in  the  way  of 
gain ;  while  the  Greeks,  as  well  as  all  the  other 
semi-civilised  peoples  of  the  time,  were  credulous, 
and  often  needed  new  gods  to  preside  over  functions 
newly  arisen  in  their  society.  It  is  not  strange, 
therefore,  that,  without  any  proselytising,  out  of 
the  conditions  of  the  case,  there  were  reciprocal 
modifications  in  the  religions  of  Assyria,  Egypt, 
Phoenicia  and  Greece. 

Above  all  else,  however,  influence  was  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  simplest  terms  of  life,  the  struggle 
for  existence  and  then  for  luxury  —  that  is,  upon 
the  industrial  organisation.  That  the  Homeric 
Greeks  had  practically  nothing  of  the  arts  and  of 
luxury,  and  that  the  Phoenicians  were  bringing 
gradually  into  their  horizon  more  and  more  of  the 
culture  of  those  civilisations  at  which  the  world  of 
to-day  cannot  cease  to  wonder,  are,  in  a  word,  the 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  7 

reasons  why  the  effect  of  this  contact  was  so  power- 
ful in  the  material  world.  In  the  domain  of  things 
advance  is  not  so  hard,  especially  if  the  less  cultured 
race  is  an  "active"  race,  restless  in  the  effort  to 
gratify  an  ever-increasing  body  of  wants,  as  the 
Greeks  certainly  were.1  #The  appreciation  of  the 
value  of  the  higher  civilisation's  simpler  gifts  was 
immediate,  and  the  desire  to  possess  the  more  com- 
plicated products  and  facilities  grew  apace.  Self- 
interest,  vanity,  love  of  beauty  —  these  and  other 
elemental  passions  of  the  Greek  were  aroused,  and 
spurred  him  to  assimilate  to  himself  what  might 
aid  him  in  the  struggle. for  existence  and  in  the 
expression  of  individuality.  It  is  no  wonder,  there- 
fore, that  here,  as  elsewhere,  those  ethnic  relations  in 
which  all  the  possibilities  of  effectful  influence  toward 
higher  forms  of  social  life  inhere,  are  found  to  root 
in  the  better  supply  of  every -day  needs  and  desires. 
Homer  does  not  name  the  Chaldaeans;  there  is 
nothing  to  indicate  that  he  was  aware  of  the 
mighty  civilisation  long  existent,  even  at  his  time, 
in  the  Euphrates  valley.  Much  less  do  we  find 
mention  of  India  or  the  Farther  East.  Of  Egypt 
several  notices  are  found  which  witness  to  at  least 
a  general  knowledge  of  the  country  and  the  people, 
seemingly  through  direct  contact.2    Egypt  was  to 

1  See  Lippert,  Kg.  I,  43  ff  for  the  distinction  between  active  and 
passive  races. 

2  Eeferences  to  the  Egyptians  are  found  in  IX,  381  ff ;  iii,  300- 
301 ;  iv,  125  ff ;  xiv,  243  ff.  See  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  1, 
149-155  and  p.  21  below. 


8  HOMERIC   SOCIETY 

Homer  a  land  of  dense  population  and  great  wealth ; 
the  Egyptians  were  not  nautical  and  resisted  pirates 
only  by  land  ;  they  were  hospitable  to  strangers  and 
not  implacable  to  enemies.  Their  agriculture  was 
splendid  and  they  were  masters  of  metal-work  — 
one  easily  sees  in  what  features  of  Egyptian  life 
the  interest  of  Homer  centred.  Realising  the  supe- 
riority of  the  Egyptian  civilisation  over  the  Greek  of 
the  early  periods,  it  is  not  strange  to  find  the  lower 
culture-stage  imputing  the  accomplishments  of  the 
higher  to  supernatural  powers.1 

It  is  not  impossible  that  Greek  traders  had,  in 
early  times,  established  posts  along  the  Egyptian 
coast ;  at  any  rate  the  fact  that  a  cenotaph  was 
erected  to  Agamemnon  in  Egypt  indicates  that 
Greek  affairs  were  of  some  repute  there.  Such  a 
memorial  would  scarcely  have  been  erected  in  an 
utterly  strange  land.2 

These  few  notices  constitute  the  sum  of  Homer's 
direct  evidence  as  to  the  civilisations  of  the  East. 
In  a  comparison  of  the  Assyrian,  Egyptian,  and 
Homeric  social  organisations,  and  more  especially 
of  their  religions  and  industrial  systems,  many 
analogies  of  more  or  less  significance  emerge,  but 
such  study  is  fraught  with  all  the  dangers  of  ex- 
aggeration and  fancifulness.  It  is  wellnigh  impos- 
sible to  fix  the  exact  provenance  of  any  particular 
set  of  ideas  or  customs,  even  though  one  may  be 
reasonably   certain    that    they    originated    in    the 

1  iv,  584 ;  Gladstone,  J.  M.,  129.  2  iv,  229-232. 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  9 

East.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  star-magic  spread  from 
Chaldsea,  not  only  to  Greece,  but  to  the  whole 
Western  world ; 1  that  certain  Chaldaean,  Egyptian, 
and  Greek  conceptions  of  cosmology  are  enough 
alike  to  establish  the  fact  of  mutual  modification ; 2 
that  certain  plants  and  animals,  originally  domesti- 
cated in  Chaldsea,  must  have  arrived  in  Greece  by 
some  sort  of  transfer ; 3  that  the  art  of  irrigation 
may  have  been  borrowed  from  the  Egyptians,  who 
had  been  trained  to  the  best  methods  by  the  annual 
necessity  of  detaining  the  overflow  of  the  Nile.4 
But  if  any  attempt  is  made  to  go  beyond  such 
generalities,  a  sort  of  criticism  is  challenged  which 
it  is  not  easy  to  refute.6 

If,  however,  we  are  content  to  know  that  such 
and  such  an  idea  or  product  came  merely  "from  the 
East,"  the  labour  of  investigation  is  at  once  light- 

1  A.  Lehmann,  Overtro  og  Trolddom,  I,  65-66 ;  Maspero,  Dawn 
of  Civilisation,  778.  Chaldaean  culture  generally  passed  through 
both  Egypt  and  Phoenicia  before  reaching  the  West.  Maspero, 
Hist.  Anc.  82  ;  85  ;  146-158;  Lehmann,  II,  35  ff. 

2  The  ocean-stream  flowing  about  the  earth,  the  metal  sky 
supported  by  pillars,  the  eternal  waters  upholding  the  universe, 
etc.,  were  common  to  both  Chaldaean  and  Egyptian  cosmology. 
These  and  other  striking  analogies  with  Homeric  ideas  are  given 
in  Maspero,  1).  of  C,  16  ff;  542  ff.  Cf  V,  504,  XVII,  425; 
XVIII,  G07-608;  iii,  2;  xv,  329;-  xvii,  565. 

8  Maspero,  1).  of  C,  601  ff ;  718  ff  ;  756  ff.         *  Ibid.,  68  ff. 

6  Lehmann  and  Maspero  give  much  information  concerning 
the  religious  and  economic  life  of  the  Assyrian  and  Egyptians; 
this  is  invaluable  from  the  comparative  standpoint,  in  the  study 
of  Homeric  society,  even  if  one  is  disinclined  to  accept  Eastern 
forms  as  types  after  which  Homeric  forms  were  modelled.  Speck 
(Hg.,  I,  chs.  Ill,  V,  and  VI)  treats  Assyrian,  Egyptian,  and  Phoe- 
nician trade  briefly  and  comprehensively. 


10  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

ened  and  its  certainty  better  assured.  The  study  is 
narrowed  down  to  the  commercial  history  of  a 
single  people ;  for,  since  neither  Chaldsea  nor  Egypt 
could  possess  adequate  shipping,  and  since  the 
Homeric  Greeks  themselves  made  no  attempt  to 
approach  the  East  as  merchants,  any  transfer  of 
Eastern  civilisation  toward  the  West  must  have 
been  the  service  of  the  only  maritime  people  of 
remote  antiquity  —  the  Phoenicians.  It  was  in 
their  hands  that  the  currents  of  Eastern  influence 
were  confined  in  a  single  channel,  later  to  be  re- 
leased and  disseminated  from  the  Hellespont  to 
lands  beyond  the  pillars  of  Hercules.  It  is  here  at 
the  "  narrows "  that  the  stream  of  ideas,  products, 
and  processes  may  be  most  satisfactorily  viewed, 
and  the  general  influence  of  the  Eastern  Empires 
on  Homeric  civilisation  may  be,  at  least  in  its 
broadest  lines,  determined. 

It  would  be  far  beyond  the  province  of  this  essay 
to  attempt  to  show  in  any  exhaustive  manner  the 
peculiar  fitness  of  the  trader  as  a  culture-carrier  and 
disseminator,  his  superiority  to  the  soldier  and  the 
missionary  and  even  to  the  beneficently  disposed 
government  of  a  "  higher  "  nation.  It  may  be  said, 
however,  that  the  Phoenicians,  though  the  first  of 
maritime  traders  on  the  grand  scale,  exemplify  in  a 
very  high  degree  this  characteristic  culture-mission 
of  the  cold-hearted,  self-interested  merchant.  Un- 
fortunately for  the  world,  but  little  is  known  of 
their  history;  but  the  far-reaching  results  of  their 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  11 

life  and  activity  find  witnesses  in  all  the  peoples 
who  now  represent  European  civilisation.  "  Europe 
would  never  have  become  what  it  is  to-day  without 
the  Phoenicians."  ' 

Bounded  on  either  hand  by  a  great  culture-empire 
and  endowed  above  each  with  advantages  of  geo- 
graphical position  and  with  the  possession  of  mate- 
rials for  the  construction  of  ships,  the  attention  of 
the  Phoenicians  was  early  directed  toward  an  inter- 
mediary trade  between  Chaldaea  and  Egypt.2  With 
the  advance  of  civilisation  toward  the  West,  they 
found  their  country  the  staple  of  the  whole  world ; 
they  were  enabled  to  seize  at  the  outset  and  to  hold 
for  ages  that  lucrative  frontier-trade  which  reaps 
its  enormous  gains  from  a  double  exchange  of  com- 
modities between  markets  of  widely  diverse  con- 
junctures. 

To  all  appearance  these  rare  advantages  were 
offered  to  a  people  ready  to  profit  by  them  to  the 
utmost.  A  national  character  was  present  or  was 
speedily  evolved  which  at  once  fell  in  with  the 
national  opportunities  and  destiny,  and  contributed 
in  a  degree  hardly  to  be  exaggerated  to  the  dissemi- 
nation of  Eastern  civilisation  over  the  then  known 
world.  For  no  sentiments  or  prejudices  of  any 
kind,  religious  or  patriotic,  were  allowed  to  hamper 

1  Gumplowicz,  Rassenk.,  330;  cf.  Pietschmann,  12  ff. 

2  Movers,  II,  pt.  3,  19-20;  127  ff;  Pietschmann,  10  ff;  141  ff; 
249  ;  291-292 ;  Meyer,  I,  237  ff.  Movers,  though  old,  is  a  splendid 
authority ;  his  data  have  been  constantly  checked  by  reference  to 
Jater  works.  .     ..  . 


12  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

the  Phoenicians  in  the  development  of  their  trade ; 
all  that  pertains  to  national  identity  was  readily 
renounced  in  the  pursuit  of  material  gain.  Where 
their  neighbours,  the  Hebrews,  have  clung  through 
ages  of  misery  and  oppression  to  their  integrity  of 
blood  and  to  their  distinctive  national  characteris- 
tics, the  Phoenicians  have  so  completely  sacrificed 
all  these  as  to  have  lost  all  national  identity  and 
to  have  ceased  as  a  people  to  exist.1  Conquest  by 
foreign  powers  disturbed  Phoenician  equanimity  but 
slightly ;  for  centuries  Assyrian  and  Egyptian  domi- 
nation alternated  in  the  land,  experiencing  little 
resistance  from  a  people  which,  for  example,  during 
the  invasion  of  Seti  I,  "  found  that  a  voluntarily 
paid  tribute  would  cost  less  than  a  war  against  the 
Pharaohs,  and  consoled  themselves  amply  for  the 
loss  of  their  independence  in  getting  control  of 
the  maritime  commerce  of  Egypt."  2 

It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  the  Phoenicians 
should  have  successively  absorbed  the  ideas,  pro- 
ducts and  processes  of  the  two  great  empires  of  the 
East.  They  assimilated  foreign  elements  so  rapidly 
and  permanently  that  "  the  civilisation  of  the  Phoe- 
nician people  lacked  in  almost  all  respects  the  ele- 
ment of  independence."  3     One  can  scarcely  conceive 

1  Gumplowicz,  Rassenk.,  332-333. 

2  Maspero,  H.  A.,  214  ;  cf.  Movers,  II,  pt.  1,  250 ;  Pietschmann, 
252  ff  (see  note  p.  19)  ;  Meyer,  I,  253  ff . 

3  Movers,  II,  pt.  1,  251.  The  boundaries  of  Phoenician  trading 
privileges  were  regularly  widened  under  foreign  conquest.  Cf. 
Movers,  II,  pt.  1,  221  ff ;  Pietschmann,  7  ff ;  252  ff . 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  13 

of  a  people  better  equipped  for  the  dissemination  of 
a  complex  of  culture  which  would  contain  the  best 
then  known  on  earth.  The  same  qualities  which 
lent  them  this  power  also  made  them  effective,  as 
we  shall  see,  in  the  naturalness  and  tactfulness  of 
their  method  of  distribution. 

The  Phoenicians  came  into  contact  with  the  less 
developed  peoples  of  the  West  in  their  trading-posts 
and  colonies.  They  were  first  lured  to  sea  in  the 
search  for  the  murex  hrandaris,  a  mollusk  from 
which  the  much-prized  purple  dye  of  the  time  was 
extracted.  This  attempt  to  supply  Oriental  demand 
taught  them  to  sail  the  seas  more  daringly  and 
skilfully ;  it  also  led  them  to  the  establishment  of 
numerous  trading-stations,  from  the  best  of  which 
were  later  formed  the  founded  colonies,  permanent 
footholds  of  culture  in  the  foreign  land.  The 
establishment  of  settlements  of  a  permanent  nature 
dates  back  to  a  remote  antiquity ;  they  were  situated 
generally  at  the  mouth  of  a  river  or  in  some  equally 
accessible  place.  Many  of  them  must  have  become 
flourishing  colonies  before  the  Homeric  age ;  we 
know  that  the  African  and  Spanish  coasts  were 
partially  occupied  by  emigrants  before  that  period.1 
Homer  himself  shows  signs  of  having  known  Phoe- 
nicians for  some  generations. 

.  1  Movers,  II,  pt.  2,  26  ff ;  133  ff ;  pt.  3,  16  ff  (cf.  xv,  415  ff) ;  Mas- 
pero,  Hist.  Anc.  244-246  ;  Meyer,  I,  230  ff ;  Pietschraann,  27  ;  240  £f ; 
279  ff.  The  name  Sidon  means  "  Fish-catching."  Movers,  II,  pt. 
I,  86  ;  Pietschmann,  25. 


14  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

It  should  be  remarked  here  that  the  political 
stability  of  these  colonial  establishments  of  the 
Phoenicians  was  not  such  as  to  assure  their  racial 
integrity  —  least*  of  all  their  continued  expansion 
through  extensive  conquest  of  adjacent  territory. 
The  government  of  the  colonies,  like  that  of  the 
metropolis,  its  prototype,  was  feeble  and  vacil- 
lating, possessing  no  such  stamina  as  that  lent  to 
the  Eoman  settlements  by  the  power  of  a  dominant 
patriarchal  system.  The  inherent  weakness  and 
lack  of  power  of  expansion,  typical  of  the  ma- 
triarchate,  was  the  fatal  feature  of  the  Phoenician 
system;1  its  destiny  before  the  well-knit  organi- 
sation of  the  father-rule  could  never  be  long  in 
doubt.  The  possibility  of  rapid  amalgamation  in 
the  presence  of  any  strong,  even  if  barbaric, 
government,  lay  always  before  the  Phoenician 
colonies. 

Fortunately,  the  political  permanence  of  the 
Phoenician  settlements  had  little  import  for  the 
dissemination  of  civilisation.  The  extent  and  char- 
acter of  their  trade  were  all  important  here.  A 
glance  at  the  commercial  methods  of  these  middle- 
men shows  that  no  means  or  avenues  of  gain  re- 
mained hidden  to  their  sharpened  business-sense; 
their  commercial  methods  were  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  their  character  as  outlined  above.  The 
Phoenicians  were  first  of  all  pirates.     If  they  were 

1  Lipperfc,  I,  608;  Pietschmann,  26;  132  ff;  288;  Movers,  II, 
pt.  1,  559-561  ;  pt.  2, 34-39  ;  51-52. 


Ethnic  environment  15 

in  force,  they  pillaged,  burned,  took  slaves,  and 
robbed  temples ;  if  they  were  not  in  force,  they 
debarked  their  goods  peaceably,1  and  by  less  open 
means  contrived  to  gain  a  scarcely  inferior  advan- 
tage over  an  unsophisticated  people.  The  name 
"  Phoenician,"  therefore,  became  synonymous  with 
liar,  thief,  and  kidnapper,  and  the  Phoenicians  won 
the  hatred  of  all  nationsr^'We  shall  find  this  at- 
titude clearly  displayed  in  Horner.2^  But  however 
much  the  Phoenicians,  and  consequently  their  busi- 
ness, were  despised,  they  had  to  be  tolerated.  "  Led 
by  impulses  of  pure  self-interest,  striving  ever,  with 
deceit  and  trickery,  after  material  gain,  they  none 
the  less  performed  the  greatest  services  in  spreading 
culture  for  mankind  in  general,  and  especially  for 
the  European."3  The  Phoenicians  were,  par  ex- 
cellence, the  culture-carriers  of'  the  ancient  world. 
They  did  not  know  this;  it  lay  in  the  nature  of 
things.  As  Movers  says : 4  "To  the  merchant  of 
the  ancient,  as  of  the  modern  world,  there  is 
nothing  more  foreign  than  to  appear  as  an  apostle 
of  religion,  culture,  and  morals;  he  has  no  other 
object  than  gain."  The  weight  of  advanced  morals 
and  canons  was  therefore  not  forced  upon  the 
western  peoples ;  through  motives  of  mutual  self- 
interest  the  natural   forces   of   development   were 

1  Maspero,  Hist.  Anc.  248  ff. 

2  Movers,  II,  pt.  3,83;  104-105;  126;  xiv,288ff ;  xv,416. 
8  Gumplowicz,  Kassenk.,  330;  cf.  Pietschmann,  12ff. 

4  II,  pt.  3,  p.  4. 


16  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

allowed  to  take  their  natural  course,  and  as  a 
result,  these  "lower"  peoples,  well-represented  by 
the  Greeks,  did  not  die  out,  nor  were  they  thrown 
into  bewilderment,  but  lived  on  into  a  splendid 
national  future. 

In  those  days  the  social  and  moral  systems  of 
his  customers  were  nothing  to  the  trader ;  he  might 
despise  them,  but  he  never  was  impolitic  enough  to 
display  his  feelings,  nor  had  he  any  thought  of 
attempting  to  alter  them  in  a  proselytising  spirit. 
There  were  no  souls  to  be  saved,  no  "ideals,"  social 
or  other,  to  be  realised,  if  necessary  through  perse- 
cution and  bloodshed.  Systems  of  marriage,  prop- 
erty-holding, etc.,  were  not  interfered  with,  nor  was 
there  any  meddling  with  religious  systems.  In 
the  domain  of  religion,  however,  since  dread  of  the 
supernatural  entered  into  all  affairs  of  life,  keeping 
men  ever  on  the  alert  for  some  "  Unknown  God " 
who  might  unless  recognised  and  propitiated,  ex- 
ercise some  malevolent  influence  on  life,  it  is  likely 
that  contact  with  the  Phoenicians  exercised  some 
influence.  If  so,  it  was  an  unconscious  one,  taking 
effect  through  the  initiative  and  volition  of  the  less 
cultured  race.  In  the  field  of  the  industrial  or- 
ganisation, however,  it  was  the  trader's  business  to 
spread  abroad  the  products  of  civilisation.  His 
religious  views  might  be  suppressed  for  commercial 
purposes;  here,  the  policy  was  not  to  conceal  and 
modify,  but  to  contrast  and  exhibit  national  pro- 
ducts and  ideas. 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  17 

The  Phoenician  religion  was  a  composite ;  the  Phoe- 
nicians had  many  chances  to  learn  the  religious  ideas 
of  other  lands,1  and,  for  the  sake  of  trade-advan- 
tages, they  had  no  hesitation  in  conforming  to  them. 
In  Egypt,  according  to  Movers,  they  practised  cir- 
cumcision, and  so  gained  privileges  over  competitors  ; 
in  Greece  they  attempted  to  avoid  unpopularity  by 
concealing  the  practice.2  Where  the  personalities 
of  the  gods  and  their  cults  were  not  much  different, 
assimilation  was  easy.  The  complicated  personali- 
ties of  the  gods,  which  arose  in  later  times,  attest 
the  origin  of  this  assimilation-process  in  remote 
ages.  Movers  says  the  Phoenician  religion  was  per- 
meated with  Chaldasan  and  Egyptian  ideas,  and 
that  only  the  history  of  the  foreign  additions  could 
explain  such  complicated  conceptions  of  divinity,  as, 
for  instance,  that  of  Bel  or  Astarte ;  that,  however, 
all  these  Eastern  conceptions  were  so  much  alike 
that,  for  all  this  interchange  of  minor  modifications, 
the  fundamental  character  of  any  particular  divinity 
was  not  altered.3     From  the   East,  therefore,   the 


1  Movers,  T,  56.  2  Ibid.,  61. 

8  It  is  a  well-known  fact  of  ethnography  that  simple  peoples  will 
readily  accept  strangers'  gods  into  a  subordinate  place  in  their  the- 
ology, provided  their  own  chief  gods  are  not  molested  thereby.  It 
is  ever  an  impossibility  to  say  just  what  elements  belong  to  each  of 
two  mutually  assimilating  religions;  yet  in  the  creation  of  the 
Aphrodite-Astarte  (Ashtoreth,  Mylitta,  Mitra,  Kypris,  Kythereia), 
the  evidence  favours  Phoenicia  with  the  bulk  of  responsibility.  The 
religions  of  those  early  ages,  as  we  have  seen,  were  different  rather 
in  degree  of  refinement  than  in  kind;  in  any  case  it  was  not  a 
politic  move  to  try  to  introduce  any  great  changes  in. the  cult  of  good 


18  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

Phoenicians  gained  new  functions  for  their  old  gods, 
and,  in  turn,  carried  the  process  on  toward  the 
West. 

The  most  genuine  and  lasting  service  which  the 
Phoenicians  performed  for  civilisation  lay  in  the 
dissemination  of  the  actual  products  and  processes 
of  industry ;  the  Greeks  were  among  the  first,  both 
in  time  and  in  degree,  to  profit  by  this  activity. 

The  Phoenicians  were  the  skippers  of  the  ancient 
world  and  had  the  best  ships,  not  only  heavy  ves- 
sels of  burden,  but  also  those  that  were  light,  long, 
and  swift,  according  to  standards  of  the  time.  They 
sailed  by  night  as  well  as  by  day,  directing  their 
course  by  the  polar  (called  Phoenician)  star,  while 
the  Greeks,  in  their  rare  night  sails,  steered  less 
surely  by  a  constellation.  More  than  that,  the 
Phoenicians  had  learned  to  sail  into  the  wind,  a 
feat  little  short  of  miraculous  in  those  days.1  They 
enjoyed  a  great  reputation  among  their  contempora- 
ries, and  could  not  have  been  without  influence  upon 
the  whole  of  the  later  development  of  ships  and 
navigation.  Evolution  of  trade  went  hand  in  hand 
with  advance  in  nautical  art. 

There  was  no  article  too  humble  for  the  Phoeni- 
cian trading-list.     Tin  from  Britain  was  gotten  with 

customers ;  hence  it  is  probable  that  the  majority  of  Phoenician 
additions  to  a  local  cult  lay  in  embellishments  no  longer  to  be  de- 
tected. Cf.  Movers,  I,  12 ;  52  ;  82  ;  II,  pt.  2,  271 ;  Naegelsbach,  H. 
T.,  85  ff;  Gladstone,  J.  M.,  313-319;  Pietschmann,  152  ff ;  184-185; 
284  ;  Meyer,  I,  250  ff. 
i  Movers,  II,  pt.  3,  158  ff ;  184-186  ;  Pietschmann,  27 ;  34  ff ;  283. 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  19 

iron  kettles  from  the  Chalybians.  Wares  were  pur- 
chased at  low  prices  in  the  East  where  they  were 
plenty,  and  sold  for  fabulous  advances  in  the  West, 
where  the  demand  was  practically  infinite ;  then,  in 
the  West,  valuable  raw  goods  were  purchasable  for 
almost  nothing,  while  in  the  East  they  realised  very 
high  prices.1  This  was  the  general  character  of  the 
Phoenician  trade. 

Under  the  head  of  manufactured  articles  for  ex- 
port would  be  included :  prepared  fabrics,  wines,  oil, 
and  intoxicants ;  papyrus  articles,  linen  (an  exceed- 
ingly important  product),  ointments,  prepared  spices, 
incense,  embalming-mixtures,  perfumes,  dyes,  and 
drugs  from  Egypt,  and  the  various  products  of  metal 
work,  ornaments  and  weapons  of  a  superior  quality.2 
Together  with  these  products  there  came  vague  ideas 
of  the  processes  of  their  manufacture ;  though  the 
latter,  in  general,  could  be  better  learned  from  the 
Phoenician  settlers.  From  them  the  Greeks  could 
gain  also  something  of  the  art  of  construction  in 
wood  and  stone,  of  ship-building,  etc. 

The  second  class  of  culture-products  brought  by 
the  Phoenicians,  consisted  of  things  in  nature,  into 
whose  being  there  had  been  infused,  by  the  effoit 
of  man,  an  element  of  refinement  and  superiority, 
i.  e.,  varieties  of  domesticated  animals  and  plants. 
Besides  wine  and   oil,    there  came  the   cultivated 


1  Movers,  II,  pt.  3,  87  ff ;  Pietschmann,  291. 

2  Lippert,  I,  298 ;  603  ff ;  623  ;  630  ff ;  Movers,  II,  pt.  3, 96  ff ;  317  ; 
321  ff:  Pietschmann,  148. 


20  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

vine  and  olive,  raised,  Lippert  thinks,  in  Attica 
and  Boeotia  by  the  settler-smiths.1  Fruit  was 
ever  a  considerable  factor  in  the  Phoenician  export- 
trade,  and  after  it  followed  many  noble  trees,  such 
as  the  fig,  pomegranate,  and  date-palm.  Peaches 
and  plums,  which  early  found  a  thriving-place  in 
Babylonia  and  Syria,  must  have  been  carried  toward 
the  West  in  later  times.2  The  finest  grains  of  the 
ancient  world — wheat,  barley,  etc.  —  took  their 
origin  in  the  fertile  peninsula  of  Mesopotamia, 
and  gradually  supplanted  the  cruder  varieties  of 
the  West.3 

Chaldseans  and  Egyptians  early  discovered  those 
great  weapons  of  primitive  and  modern  domesti- 
cators,  the  bola  and  the  lasso ;  and  were  in  the  pos- 
session of  selected  breeds  of  horses,  asses,  and 
cattle4  at  an  early  period.  These  breeds  were  car- 
ried out  by  the  Phoenicians  freely ;  to  this  day  the 
finest  horses  in  the  world  have  come  originally  from 
Chaldsea  through  Arabia.  The  cult-selection  prac- 
tised upon  kine  in  Egypt  worthily  supplemented 
that  of  the  East.  The  powerful  breeds  of  hunting- 
dogs  and  the  feebler  "  ornamental  "  dogs  5  of  the 
Greeks  probably  originated  in  the  dog-cult  of  the 
East.     Presence  of  dogs,  horses,  and  cattle  seems  to 

1  Lippert,  I,  604  ;  630  ;  II,  220 ;  222. 

2  Id  I,  606  ff ;  Movers,  II,  pt.  3,  90  if ;  cf.  "  Pf irsche  "  (Persian) ; 
"damson,"  (Damascus). 

8  Lippert,  I,  584  ff. 

4  Id.  I,  303  ;  Movers,  II,  pt.  3,  5  ;  92  ff. 

6  See  pp.38, 169  below. 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  21 

mark  an  advanced  culture ;  sheep  and  goats  alone 
are  found  among  lower  tribes,  like  the  Cyclopes. 

The  processes  and  arts  of  domestication  and 
breeding  of  plants  and  animals  came  in  the  train 
of  the  products  themselves ;  already  in  Homer  the 
least  technical  of  these  methods  are  known.1 

But  by  far jthe  most  important  element  in  Phoe- 
nician commerce,  as  far  as  the  teaching  of  the  arts 
was  concerned,  was  the  slave-trade.2  Kidnapping 
was  one  of  the  most  profitable  operations  of  the 
trader,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  he  did  not  hesitate 
to  take  slaves  by  force.  Thus  Egyptians,  Syrians, 
Assyrians,  and  Hebrews  made  their  way  to  the 
boundaries  of  civilisation.  Phrygians  and  Lydians 
taught  their  masters  what  they  themselves  knew, 
from  simpler  things,  like  the  process  of  boiling3 
to  the  highest  operations  of  the  arts.  Also  Greeks 
spent  years  of  captivity  in  Sidon  and  Egypt,4  and 
perhaps  escaped  at  last  with  a  wealth  of  observa- 
tion and  experience.  Thus  individual  pain  and 
distress  were  the  most  potent  factors  in  the  ad- 
vance of  culture ;  slavery  was  both  bad  and  good. 

The  trade  of  Phoenicia  established  in  the  ancient 
world  a  route  of  industrial  culture  which  has  been 
taken  in  later  times  by  movements  of  thought,  art, 
and  morals,  and  by  Christianity  itself.  From  the 
line  of  direct  contact  back  into  the  primeval  forests 

1  See  p.  35  below. 

2  Movers,  II,  pt.  3,  6 ;  83  ;  Pietschmann,  28  ff. 
8  Lippert,  I,  349.  4  xiv,  200  ff. 


V   OF  THE 


OF 

ULIFO! 


««' 


22  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

of  Europe  and  into  the  deserts  of  Africa,  was  estab- 
lished a  gradation  of  culture,  plainly  discernible, 
together  with  a  sharp  distinction  between  nearest 
and  remotest.1  Along  this  stream  of  trade  were 
prevalent  like  arts  and  sciences,  products  and  pro- 
cesses ;  like  weights  and  measures,  articles  of  barter 
(in  later  times,  silver  money),  ships  and  shipping; 
and  approximately  similar  ways  of  thinking  and 
acting  —  elements  all  that  worked  toward  a  soli- 
darity, union,  and  growth,  which  in  turn  reacted 
with  power  to  increase  the  momentum  of  civili- 
sation's advance.  As  people  became  more  alike 
they  felt  for  each  other  a  larger  toleration  and 
sympathy. 

The  imports  destined  for  home-consumption  or 
to  supply  Phoenician  industries  consisted  chiefly  of 
grain,  and  of  various  kinds  of  raw  goods  to  be 
worked  up;  wool,  metals,  etc.  As  a  gainful  oper- 
ation, this  importation  and  manufacture  were  doubt- 
less less  profitable  than  the  favourite  intermediary 
trade  —  the  Phoenicians  were  carriers  first  and 
always.  They  exchanged  goods  between  barbarous 
peoples  and  levied  a  liberal  toll  for  the  service. 
They  exchanged  slaves  between  nations  and  made 
clear  profits,  such  gains  assuring  the  great  popularity 
of  the  slave-trade  among  them.2 

But,  indirectly  or  directly  gathered  and  whatever 
their  destination,  the  final  eastward-bound  cargoes 

1  Cf.  Movers,  II,  pt.  3,  p.  3  ;  Pietschmann,  285. 

2  Movers,  II,  pt.  3,  83  ;  87. 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  23 

were  of  a  consistent  type  —  mostly  metals.  Copper, 
gotten  from  Cyprus  and  other  stations  and  skilfully 
wrought,  gave  Sidon  a  reputation  for  articles  made 
from  this  metal.1  Tin,  then  ranked  as  a  noble 
metal,  later  made  the  manufacture  of  bronze  pos- 
sible ;  tin  came  almost  entirely  from  the  West.2 
Chief  in  importance,  however,  were  gold  and  sil- 
ver:3 and,  in  general  estimation,  the  latter  metal 
was  of  the  greater  value.  Silver  was  scarce  in  the 
East ;  it  could  not  be  gathered  from  the  river-beds, 
like  gold;4  it  demanded  mining,  a  laborious  and  ex- 
pensive operation.  Silver  became  later  the  money 
of  Phoenicia,  and  so  of  the  world. 

Silver  and  gold,  at  this  time  of  barter-trade,  were 
valuable  as  commodities ;  fluctuations  in  their  value 
were  like  fluctuations  in  the  value  of  any  other 
commodity.  As  commodities,  there  was  great  de- 
mand for  them  for  religious  purposes  and  in  the 
arts.  Only  by  means  of  their  offer  of  the  noble 
metals  in  exchange,  it  is  said,  did  the  Phoenicians 
force  an  entrance  into  the  trade  of  rich  countries 
like  India,5  countries  which  otherwise  were  self- 
sufficient,  needing  nothing  beyond  what  they  them- 
selves produced.  Trade  in  gold  and  silver,  therefore, 
greatly  enhanced  the  wealth  of  the  Phoenicians. 

1  Maspero,  Hist.  Anc,  234  ff;  Pietschmann,  245  ff;  cf.  xv, 
425. 

8  Movers,  II,  pt.  3,  27-28 ;  62 ;  Pietschmann,  287  ;  Meyer,  I, 
226. 

8  Movers,  II,  pt.  3,  28 ;  Pietschmann,  291-292. 

4  Movers,  II,  pt  3,  35.  5  Ibid.,  27. 


24  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

From  this  sketch  some  idea  can  be  gained  of  the 
mission  of  the  Phoenicians,  their  fitness  for  it,  and 
their  tact  and  success  in  its  accomplishment.  We 
have  noticed  the  environment  of  Phoenicia  and  the 
gradual  moulding  of  the  people's  character  to  that 
environment ;  how  they  improved  splendid  chances 
and  reaped  the  inevitable  rewards ;  how  they  little 
by  little  came  to  subordinate  all  to  their  one  motive, 
and  thus,  disappearing  themselves  among  the  peo- 
ples they  were  civilising,  passed  away,  as  a  nation, 
forever.  It  is  not  strange,  then,  that  much  which 
might  have  originated  in  Chaldsea  or  Egypt  came 
to  Homer  as  a  Phoenician  gift,  and  that  credit  was 
accorded  by  him  to  the  middleman  which  should 
have  been  referred  to  the  principal.1  Painstaking 
accuracy  as  to  origins  was  a  matter  of  complete 
indifference  in  those  days ;  nor  is  it  indispensable 
at  the  present  time  in  a  study  of  the  broad 
movements  of  civilisation.  The  line  of  thought  has 
been  to  show  how  the  Phoenicians,  gathering  from 
the  East,  dispersed  toward  the  West  the  seeds  of 
future  civilisations.  If  we  may  pause  by  the  way 
to  deduce  one  general  lesson  in  social  development 
from  the  history  of  the  contact  of  these  unequally 
advanced  civilisations,  it  is  this :  that  cold  self- 
interest,  working  through  trade  upon  the  material 
basis  of  less  developed  societies,  has  produced  a 
maximum  of  result,  with  a  minimum  of  pain,  fruit- 
less effort,  and  retrogression. 

1  Cf.  Gladstone,  J.  M.,  129. 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  25 

What  Homer  knew  of  the  Phoenicians 

As  has  been  said,  Homer  knows  the  Phoenicians 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  lower  civilisation.  He 
makes  little  distinction  between  Phoenician  and 
Greek  as  to  government,  property-ideas,  and  mar- 
riage-customs. Distinctions  in  religion  are  vaguely 
and  perhaps  unconsciously  made.  The ,  practical 
mind  of  Homer  is  interested  in  things  rather  than 
in  ideas ;  in  the  material  possessions  of  society 
rather  than  in  secondary,  and  for  the  most  part,  un- 
consciously developed  social  forms.  In  Homer  the 
Phoenician  is  a  lustful,  lying,  but  wonderfully  wise 
trader ; *  the  inquiry  is  carried  little  further. 

The  products  and  processes,  domesticated  animals 
and  plants,  and  the  slavery  which  Homer  has  come 
to  know  through  the  Phoenicians,  will  be  treated  in 
their  places  in  some  detail.  To  speak  in  general, 
all  the  most  wonderful  products  and  processes  of  the 
industrial  organisation  are  regularly  assigned  to 
foreigners,  and  generally  the  responsibility  of  the 
Phoenician  is  not  far  to  seek.  From  the  Phoenicians 
Homer  also  gains  his  vague  knowledge  of  exterjor 
geography  and  his  scarcely  more  accurate  ideas  con- 
cerning the  great  Eastern  civilisations.  The  regions 
beyond  his  actual  experience  Homer  peoples  with 
gods  and  men  who  often  bear  an  unmistakably  Ori- 
ental stamp;  for  instance,  the  Phseacians  and  the 
Egyptian  Proteus,  who  knows  all  the  seas  and  is  a 

1  xiv,  288-289  ;  xv,  420  ff  j  440  £f ;  459. 


J 


26  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

symbolic  skipper. *  What  Homer  has  learned  excites 
his  imagination,  and  as  a  result  we  have  the  wonder- 
tales  of  the  two  poems ;  the  shield  of  Achilles,  the 
homes  of  Circe  and  Calypso,  the  island  of  iEolus, 
and  especially  the  island  of  Scheria  are  described 
with  the  Phoenicians  and  Phoenician  stories  in 
mind.2  Of  these  creations,  that  of  the  Phseacian 
people  best  illustrates  Homer's  idea  of  a  cultured 
foreign  nation ;  how  far  it  is  conceived  in  Phoenician 
terms  may  be  judged  from  a  summary  of  Homer's 
description. 

The  Phseacians  are  a  people  "  near  to  the  gods  " ; 
they  sacrifice  at  all  times,  and  the  gods  sit  and  eat 
with  them.  They  do  not  fear  to  meet  the  gods  face 
to  face.3  They  build  regular  temples  and  highly 
honour  Hermes  as  the  god  of  convoy.4  Poseidon 
has  given  them  ships,  and  they  are  masters  of  sea- 
manship.6 Near  their  finely  arranged  harbour  is  a 
rope-walk  and  a  ship-yard,  at  which  Odysseus  won- 
ders much.6  On  their  ships  they  have  once  fled 
from  their  home-land,  because  their  neighbours,  the 
Cyclopes  (who  own  no  ships),  have  harassed  them.7 
These  ships  are  "  swift  as  a  wing  or  as  a  thought," 
and  perform  the  trip  to  far  away  Euboea,  returning 

1  iv,  384  ff;  Naegelsbach,  85  ff. 

2  "  Wherever  the  Phoenicians  had  been,  the  grandeur  and  auda- 
city of  their  enterprises  had  left  ineffaceable  traces  in  the  imagina- 
tion of  the  people."     Maspero,  Hist.  Anc,  234. 

3  v,  35  ;  vii,  163-165  ;  191 ;  203-205. 

4  vi,  10;  vii,  136-138.  6  vi,  268-269. 
6  v,  386 ;  vii,  34-39  ;  viii,  247.                    7  vi,  4-10. 


ETHNIC  ENVIRONMENT  27 

the  same  day.1  Phseacian  names  are  almost  without 
exception  derived  from  the  sea,  ships,  or  the  arts.2 
The  Phseacians  are  a  people  of  convoyers,  unwarlike, 
rejoicing  in  the  sea ;  their  ships  are  endowed  with  a 
certain  intelligence  and  know  all  lands  and  men.3 

The  Phaeacian  women  are  as  superior  at  the  loom 
as  the  men  are  in  nautical  matters.4  The  city  of  the 
Phseacians  is  strongly  walled,  and  they  have  no  fear 
of  enemies.  They  are  immensely  rich,  have  won- 
derful houses  and  the  best  of  metal-work.  Their 
gardens,  vineyards,  and  orchards  are  models  of  va- 
riety and  beauty,  and  yield  great  increase.5  The 
leader  of  the  colony  becomes  king,  builds  temples, 
and  divides  the  fields.6 

The  Phasacians  are  fond  of  games  of  swiftness 
and  skill,  are  not  boxers  or  wrestlers,  but  always  to 
them  "  the  feast  is  dear,  and  the  cithara  and  choral 
dances,  and  changes  of  raiment,  and  warm  baths 
and  couches."  Their  juggling  and  dancing  are  in- 
tricate and  pleasing,  and  astonish  Odysseus  out  of 
all  measure.7 

The  whole  picture  is  one  of  an  Oriental,  maritime, 
and  industrial  people.  Homer  could  scarcely  have 
gotten  the  material  for  his"  imagination  to  work 
upon  elsewhere  than  from  the  Phoenicians.    In  like 

1  vii,  36;  321-326. 

2  vi,  7;  17;  viii,  111-114;  116. 

3  vi,  205  ;  270-272 ;  viii,  31 ;  559  ff. 
*  vii,  108-111. 

5  vi,  201-205 ;  279  ;  vii,  43-45  ;  84  ff ;  1 12-132. 

6  vi,  4-10.  7  viii,  246-249;  265. 


28  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

manner  such  creations  as  the  Shield  of  Achilles, 
where  fact  and  fancy  are  so  blended,  and  where  no 
knowledge  of  process  is  betrayed,  indicate  as  their 
originals  some  Eastern-made  products  of  the  arts, 
which  had  come  into  the  poet's  field  of  observation 
a  few  times,  but  concerning  the  real  composition  of 
which  he  was  ignorant. 

In  the  study  of  the  religion  and  industrial  organ- 
isation of  Homeric  society,  it  will  of  course  be 
impossible  to  distinguish  all,  or  nearly  all,  that  is 
native  from  that  which  is  foreign  in  origin;  but 
what  has  been  said  of  the  national  environment  of 
Greece  may  throw  an  occasional  sidelight  upon  its 
social  forms. 


CHAPTEK  II 

INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION 

HUNTING  AND   FISHING 

THE  people  of  Homer  and  their  ancestors  for 
many  generations  back,  had  prevailed  in  the 
struggle  for  existence  to  the  extent  of  emancipating 
themselves  from  primitive  uncertainty  and  irreg- 
ularity in  food-supply.  Hunting  and  fishing,  as 
affording  the  possibility  of  living,  were  employ- 
ments of  the  remote  past. 

Hunting,  however,  was  kept  up  to  a  considerable 
extent  and  was  well  systematised.1  Men  hunted  for 
the  sake  of  food,  especially  in  time  of  need,  for 
hides,2  and  doubtless  often  for  the  sake  of  the  ex- 
citement in  it.  Pursuit  of  marauding  wild  beasts 
is  a  large  chapter  in  the  annals  of  Homeric  hunt- 
ing.3 Legends  of  Orion  and  of  Heracles 4  point  to 
the  former  prevalence  of  the  chase  in  Greece.  A 
powerful  breed  of  dogs  had  been  trained  as  assist- 
ants to  man ;  hunters  were  called  "  leaders  of 
dogs."5  Nooses  were  used  to  snare  thrushes  and 
wild  pigeons.6     There  seem  to  have  been  profes- 

1  XII,  43-48. 

2  IX,  544-548 ;  X,  23 ;  29  ;  177  ;  334 ;  ix,  156  ff. 

3  IX,  533  ff ;  cf.  p.  45  below.         5  ix,  120 ;  xix,  436-437. 

4  xi,  572-575 ;  601  ff.  6  xxii,  468-470. 


30  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

sional  hunters,  using  spear  and  bow,  said  to  have 
been  taught  by  Artemis  herself.1  That  the  Greeks 
were  good  hunters  is  indicated  by  their  strikingly 
accurate  knowledge  of  wild  beasts  and  their  char- 
acteristic actions.2 

Fishing  was  less  popular  than  hunting,  and  was 
carried  on  chiefly  by  the  common  people  among 
whom  fishing,  combined  with  passenger-carrying 
by  boat,  constituted  a  regular  trade.3  Fish  were 
speared,  caught  with  hook,  line  and  pole,  or  in  nets 
of  linen  cord.4  By  the  more  fastidious  classes 
fishing  was  resorted  to  only  when  all  other  pro- 
vision failed.5 

CATTLE-RAISING 

Hunting  and  fishing  were  only  occasional  pursuits  ; 
but  cattle-raising  was  a  business  in  which  a  man  of 
any  importance  was  always  deeply  interested. 

Homeric  social  forms  witness  the  long-continued 
presence  of  the  nomadic  stage,  now  passing  away 
as  a  result  of  changed  environment.  It  is  probable 
that  the  dominant  peoples  of  Greece  and  Asia  Minor 
were  a  detachment  of  those  nomadic  conquerors  who 
ever  and  anon  swept  forth  from  the  plains  of  Cen- 
tral Asia,  infusing  fresh  blood  and  vigour  into  the 
societies  with  which  they  came  into  contact.6  Such 
were  the  Hyksos  of  Egypt ;  and  they  may  have  had 

1  V,  51 ;  ix,  156  ff.  6  iv,  368-369 ;  xii,  330-331. 

2  V,  137-141 ;  XI,  173  ff.  «  Lippert,  I,  181  ff ;  II,  82  ff. 
8  xvi,  349  ;  xxii,  384  ff  ;  xxiv,  419. 

4  V,  487  ;  x,  124  ;  xii,  251-255. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  31 

many  parallels  of  which  there  are  no  existing  records. 
In  such  cases,  sedentary  life,  in  districts  ill-fitted 
for  the  maintenance  of  great,  roaming  cattle-herds, 
was  likely  to  cause  a  weakening  of  that  strong 
patriarchate  which  we  are  accustomed  to  connect 
with  a  nomadic  existence.  That  such  conditions 
were  leading  to  this  result  in  early  Greece,  seems 
to  be  indicated  by  the  evidence  of  Homer.  At  the 
outset  we  find  agriculture  a  more  distinctive  mark 
of  civilisation  than  cattle-raising ;  agriculture  is 
absent  among  the  most  barbarous  tribes  which 
Homer  knew ;  but  for  all  that,  cattle-raising  was 
the  prevalent  occupation  of  Homer's  time. 

Priority  is  assignable  to  the  raising  of  goats,  sheep} 
and  swine.  What  little  there  may  be  of  totemism 
in  Homer  indicates  that  it  was  a  primarily  goat- 
raising  people  that  overcame  the  older  inhabitants  of 
the  land.  The  ranking  god  of  the  Greek  system 
bore  the  iEgis,  which  was  a  terror  to  all  foes.  Also, 
in  what  he  says  of  barbarous  peoples,  Homer  shows 
a  sense  of  the  priority  of  sheep  and  goats  to  horses 
and  oxen ;  in  this  according  with  the  conclusions  of 
modern  investigators.1  The  use  of  milk,  at  first 
goat's-milk,  was  one  of  the "  earliest  forces  which 
aided  growth  of  population,  and  thus  led  to  migra- 
tions.2 The  Homeric  cult  offers  some  indications  of 
the  priority  of  goats,  sheep,  and  swine. 

The  finest  sheep,  according  to  Homer,  were  found, 
not  in  Greece,  but  in  Lybia ;  there  births  occurred 

i  Lippert,  I,  502  ff.  2  Ibid.,  74  ff. 


32  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

three  times  a  year  and  there  was  never  a  lack  of 
milk.1  Polyphemus  also  had  splendid  sheep,  and 
his  lambs  were  divided  into  three  grades  with  re- 
spect to  age.2  Flocks  of  sheep  generally  wandered 
in  the  mountains;3  the  cotes  were  often  far  from 
the  dwellings  and  were  exposed,  as  were  the  scattered 
flocks,  to  the  numerous  attacks  of  wild  beasts.4 
These  cotes  were  sometimes  quite  pretentious  estab- 
lishments;5 the  shepherds  lived  there  during  the 
pasturing  season,  enduring  much  labour,  and  no 
small  danger  from  lions  and  other  predatory  animals, 
and  from  the  frequent  raids  of  neighbouring  tribes.6 
They  possessed,  as  helpers  in  their  service,  a  large, 
fierce  breed  of  dogs.  Sheep  were  regarded  as  wealth, 
and  rapid  increase  of  flocks  was  prosperity.7  About 
the  same  description  applies  to  swine-raising.  Swine 
were  sent  off  to  the  mountains  to  be  fattened,  re- 
turning in  the  winter  ;  their  food  was  acorns  and 
the  like.8  Sheep  were  raised  for  fleeces  and  wool, 
as  well  as  for  food,  but  swine  only  for  eating  pur- 
poses ;  pigskin  was  not  in  use.  There  was  a  special 
term   for   a   fatted   swine.      Swine   seem    to   have 

1  iv,  85-89. 

2  ix,  221-222. 

3  XVI,  352-354  ;  XVIII,  589  ;  ix,  315. 

4  XII,  301-303;    XIX,  376-377;    iv,  639-640;   XV,  324-325; 
XVI,  352-354. 

6  XVIII,  589  ;  xiv,  5  ff. 

6  XI,  677  if ;  see  p.  293  below. 

7  See  p.  98  below ;  II,  106 ;   605 ;  696 ;  IV,  433 ;  V,  613 ;  cf. 
xix,  113. 

8  XXI,  282-283  ;  x,  242-243. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  33 

received  less  care  than  sheep,  spending  cold  and 
stormy  nights  in  the   lee  of  a  convenient  rock.1 

More  important  than  the  raising  of  sheep  and 
goats  on  the  one  hand,  and  than  agriculture  on  the 
other,  was  the  raising  of  oxen  and  cows.  The  regular 
sacrifice  was  an  ox;  the  unit  of  the  money  of  ac- 
count was  the  ox  ;  eventide  was  "  the  loosing  of  the 
oxen  " ; 2  and  a  verb,  meaning  literally  "  to  pasture 
oxen  "  was  used  also  of  horses.3  The  Homeric  age 
was  one  where  the  absence  of  agriculture,  rather 
than  the  presence  of  goats  and  sheep,  was  regarded 
as  a  mark  of  barbarism.  But  the  possession  of  oxen 
and  horses,  as  an  evidence  of  culture,  seems  to  have 
ranked  with  agriculture  rather  than  with  sheep- 
raising,  for  Homer's  cruder  tribes  did  not  possess 
the  larger  quadrupeds.4 

The  cows  were  pastured  and  then  driven  to  pens 
which  were  apparently  never  cleaned,  and  their 
young  admitted  to  them.5  As  in  the  case  of  sheep 
and  swine,  numerous  births  seem  to  have  been  the 
desideratum.  Cows  were  butchered  for  food,  but 
there  is  no  instance  of  their  being  milked.  The 
herds  were  attended  by  special  neat-herds,  as  sheep 
were  under  shepherds  and  swine  under  swine-herds.6 
Dogs  were  used  in  tending  cows  as  well  as  sheep.7 

1  IX,  208;  ii,  300;  xiv,  533. 

2  XVI,  779  ;  ix,  58. 

8  Much  as  we  say  "  brass  andirons,"  for  example  ;  XX,  221. 
4  See  pp.  3-4  above  and  references. 
6  XVIII,  573ff;x,410-414. 

6  XVI,  352-354  ;  iv,  640 ;  xi,  293.  7  XVIII,  573  ff . 

3 


34  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

Kine  were  wealth  to  a  man  or  country,  as  were 
sheep  ;  values  were  reckoned  in  head  of  cattle.1  The 
care  of  cattle  was  a  noble  occupation,  especially 
among  the  Trojans,  and  Apollo  pastured  the  oxen  of 
Laomedon  for  wages.  Oxen  and  sheep  belonged  to 
the  droves  of  Hyperion,2  which  points  to  cult-selec- 
tion. Oxen  were  valuable  draught-animals,  and 
everywhere  beef  appears  as  an  esteemed  food. 

It  is  evident  that  the  value  of  sheep  and  kine  lay 
chiefly  in  their  contributions  to  man's  food  and 
clothing,  the  ox  aiding  him  also  in  his  work.  In 
the  horse  we  find  an  animal  which  furnished  to  the 
Greeks  neither  food  nor  clothing,  but  which  was 
used  exclusively  for  war,  travel,  and  ornament. 
Legends  of  the  "  Hippomolgoi "  prove  what  the 
horse  was  to  the  tribes  of  the  North  ; 3  some  evi- 
dence goes  to  show  the  former  prevalence  of  horse- 
sacrifice  ;  but  to  the  Greeks  of  Homer  the  horse  was 
the  friend  of  man,  and  scarcely  his  servant.  He 
was  not  used  in  the  hunt,  neither  did  he  draw  the 
plough.  The  horse  and  dog  were  the  only  animals 
to  which  names  were  given.4  The  horse  is  said  to 
have  been  begotten  or  given  by  a  god,5  and  many 
immortal   breeds   are    mentioned.     We   learn    that 


1  IX,  154;  see  pp.  96-97  below. 

2  V,  313;   VI,   23-25;   423-424;    XX,    91  ff ;   XXI,   448-449; 
xii,  129-131. 

8  XIII,  5-6. 

4  Horse;  VIII,  185;  XVI,  149;   152;  XXIII,  295;  346;  xxiii, 
246  :  Dog  ;  xvii,  292. 

6  XVI,  149-151  ;  866-867  ;  XX,  223-225  ;  XXIII,  276-278. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  35 

Phrygia  was  a  great  horse-raising  country.1  All  such 
facts  tend  to  prove  the  comparatively  late  introduc- 
tion of  the  horse  into  Greece. 

The  personal  connection  between  men  and  their 
steeds  was  close.  Evidently  the  most  careful  study 
had  been  given  to  the  horse,  for  many  of  his  charac- 
teristic instincts  and  actions  were  well  known ; 
his  fear  of  corpses,  if  unaccustomed  to  them,  his 
impatience  of  a  strange  driver,2  etc.  The  manes  of 
horses  were  washed  and  anointed  with  oil ;  "  Eepay 
Andromache's  care ! "  Hector  exhorts  his  steeds, 
"  let  us  take  the  enemy  ! "  3  The  Greeks  were  really 
connoisseurs  of  horses,  loving  them  for  beauty  and 
swiftness ;  the  pedigree  of  noble  horses  was  well- 
kept,  and  sometimes  a  fine  breed  was  stolen,4  this 
proving  that  the  Greeks  knew  something  of  domesti- 
cation and  breeding.  The  best  of  mortal  horses 
came  from  Thessaly.  The  immortal  ones  shared 
the  pains  and  sorrows  of  men,  and  Zeus  pitied  them 
as  he  saw  them  mourning  for  the  dead  Patroclus. 
All  this  shows  the  dignity  and  value  of  the  animal ; 
in  some  respects  the  horse  was  more  than  human ; 6 
in  no  respect  did  the  Greek  treat  him  as  a  far 
inferior  being. 

Horses  were  used  chiefly  to  draw  the  war-chariot. 
No  mention  is  made  of  their  being  shod,  but  they 

1  III,  185. 

2  V,  231-234  ;  X,  490-492. 

8  VIII,  186  ft;  XXIII,  281-282. 

*  II,  763  ff ;  VI,  506  ff;  V,  223  ff ;  263  ff. 

*  II,  763  ff;  XVII,  427  ff;  XIX,  404-420. 


36  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

are  called  "  strong-hoofed." *■  They  ran  in  threes 
before  the  chariot,  two  drawing  it,  and  one  as  side- 
runner  and  substitute ;  the  four-span  was  unusual.2 
There  was  no  horse-back  riding  in  battle  —  proba- 
bly the  heavy  armour  hindered  that  —  but  it  was 
practised  commonly  in  every-day  life,  as  it  is  the 
subject  of  at  least  one  homely  simile.3  Horse-racing 
was  indulged  in  with  great  zest,  and  prize-horses 
were  very  valuable.4  Trick-riding  is  found,  where 
a  man  passes  from  back  to  back  of  four  horses 
running  at  full  speed  along  the  highway.5  The 
whip  and  goad  were  necessary  for  good  speed.6 

The  horse  could  not  be  raised  in  all  parts  of 
Greece.  He  demanded  grazing-ground  and  grass  ; 
in  Ithaca,  the  rockiness  of  the  soil  caused  the 
horses  to  be  pastured  on  the  mainland  opposite. 
No  Ithacan  or  Phaeacian  names  are  derived  from 
the  horse.7  Lotos,  kupeiron,  puroi,  zeiai,  and  kri  are 
mentioned  as  food  of  the  horse.8  Abundance  of 
horses  made  a  man  wealthy,  and  prize-winning 
racers  earned  one  great  gains.9 

The  horse  was  the  nolle  animal,  and  the  work 
which  he  came  later  to  do,  was  done  in  Homer's 
time  by  the  ox,  ass,  and  mule.     The  ass  is  men- 

1  V,  321 ;  329. 

2  VIII,  87;  185;  XVI,  474-475;  cf.  XI,  699  ff ;  xiii,  81;  Buch- 
holz,  I,  pt.  2,  177. 

8  v,  371  ;  cf.  X,  498  ff. 

*  XXIII,  262  ff ;  XI,  696-700.       8  iv,  602-607. 

5  XV,  679-684.  9  XX,  220-222;  IX,  125-127. 

6  XXIII,  384  ;  387. 

7  iv,  602-607  ;  635-637  ;  Gladstone,  J.  M.,  307. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  37 

tioned  but  once,1  the  gender  being  masculine ;  but 
this  indicates  little  concerning  the  number  of  asses 
in  use,  for  work  and  breeding  purposes.  The  mule 
came  into  account  quite  frequently;  was  called 
■  half-ass,"  and  was  generally  bred  from  a  male  ass 
and  a  female  horse,2  the  gender  of  the  word  for 
mule  being  feminine.  Mules  were  the  best  beasts 
of  burden  and  draught-animals  ;  and  better  than  the 
ox  in  ploughing.3  They  had  another  name,  seem- 
ingly derived  from  the  word  for  mountain;4  in 
Greece  a  sure-footed  mountain  climber  would  have 
been  of  great  value.  Priam  is  said  to  have  had 
some  very  fine  mules  from  the  Mysians,5  which 
statement  may  indicate  the  direction  whence  the 
mules  came  into  Greece.  Mules  carried  burdens 
on  their  backs,  or  drew  wagons,  or  dragged  beams 
from  the  hills  ; 6  they  were  called  the  "  hard-work- 
ing "  mules,  and  worked  in  harness ;  they  were  ex- 
tremely hard  to  break.7 

In  view  of  the  attitude  of  Homer  toward  the  ox, 
the  horse,  and  the  mule,  it  is  probable  that  all  these 
came  to  the  Greeks  after  their  Western  migration 
and  settlement ;  we  know  that  these  animals  spread 
from  Central  Asia  at  a  comparatively  late  period.8 

1  XI,  558-562.  8  Lippert,  Kg.  I,  508  ff. 

2  XXIII,  265-266 ;  cf.  iv.  635-637. 
8  X,  352-353. 

*  I,  50. 

5  XXIV,  277-278. 

6  XXIII,  111;  120-121;  XXIV,  277  ff;  vi,  57-58;  81  ff ; 
XVII,  742-744. 

7  XXIII,  654  ;  iv,  635-637;   XXIV,  277  ;  XXIII,  654-655. 


38  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

The  dog  of  all  varieties  is  found  in  Homer.  He 
was  the  companion  of  the  hunt,  where  his  keenness 
of  scent,  swiftness,  and  courage  commended  him. 
Then  he  was  used  in  watching  and  defending  the 
flocks  and  helped  to  herd  them;  for  this  purpose, 
a  breed  of  large,  fierce  dogs  was  trained,  which  were 
like  wild  beasts  and  would  tear  a  stranger  to  pieces. 1 
The  shepherd  himself  carried  a  javelin,  "  a  defender 
from  dogs  and  men,"  and  kept  them  off  the  stranger 
only  by  stoning  them.2 

This  was  the  useful  variety  of  dog;  there  was 
another,  kept  for  ornament.  Odysseus,  at  seeing 
his  old  hound  Argos,  asked,  "  Was  he  swift,  too, 
finely  formed  as  he  is,  or  was  he  merely  like  men's 
table-dogs,  which  their  masters  keep  for  display  ? " 
Table-dogs  were  kept  in  the  house  of  Priam ;  and  a 
hero  would  often  be  accompanied  by  two  white  dogs 
as  he  went  about  the  city  or  to  assembly.3  In  such 
cases  dogs  seem  to  have  been  a  symbol  of  authority. 
The  table-dog  is  the  only  animal  Homer  designates 
as  exclusively  ornamental.  The  dog  ate  dead  bodies, 
and  was  a  symbol  of  shamelessness  and  greed  ; 4  he 
figures  also  among  the  cult-animals. 

Fowls  in  a  domesticated  state  were  few;  even 
the  cock  fails  of  mention.     Penelope  had  a  flock 

i  111,26;  VIII,  338ff;  XV,579-581;  xvii,  315-317 ;  X,  183- 
185  ;  XI,  549  ;  XVIII,  578  ;  xiv,  21  ft. 

2  xiv,  29-38;  531. 

8  xvii,  308-310  (quoted);  XXII,  69;  also  XXIII,  173;  ii,  11. 

*  I,  5;  159;  XVII,  558 ;  XXII,  69;  III,  180;  cf.  "kunteron" 
(VIII,  483). 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  39 

of  white  geese  in  the  courtyard,  but  they  seem  to 
have  been  kept  for  ornament  rather  than  for  food. 
Several  towns  are  mentioned  which  were  rich  in 
doves,  and  these  birds  apparently  had  a  certain 
religious   office.1 

Wild  species  of  all  these  animals  and  fowl,  ex- 
cept oxen,  horses,  and  dogs,  were  well  known ; 
and,  in  some  cases,  like  that  of  the  fowls,  it  is  im- 
possible to  tell  whether  domestication  was  com- 
plete, i.  e.,  whether  they  bred  in  captivity.  Sheep 
and  goats,  horses,  asses,  and  dogs  bred  freely  in 
captivity,  so  their  domestication  might  be  regarded 
as  accomplished.  It  is  unlikely  that  the  Greeks 
themselves  domesticated  oxen,  horses,  and  asses ;  at 
any  rate,  since  we  know  that  the  Chaldseans  and 
Egyptians  did  domesticate  them,  and  that  the  Phoe- 
nicians brought  them,  it  is  simpler  to  suppose  their 
domestication  foreign. 

AGRICULTURE 

The  physical  geography  of  Greece  was  such  as 
to  produce  a  mighty  change  in  the  methods  of  life 
of  nomad  settlers.  There  were  no  wide  plains  in 
which  to  roam  ;  sedentary  conditions  were  imposed, 
for  cattle-raising  was  restricted  to  certain  fixed 
boundaries.  Thus,  negatively,  agriculture  was  en- 
couraged. Influences  from  the  East  completed  the 
work  in  a  positive  way,  until,  in  the  time  of  Homer, 

i  xv,  161  ff  (cf.  Lippert,  1,567-568;  574);  11,502;  582;  xii, 
63. 


40  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

agriculture  was  the  sign  of  civilisation,  the  eye  was 
ever  open  to  indications  of  fertility,  and  rich  land, 
uncultivated,  was  a  painful  sight.1 

It  is  likely  that  all  the  fine  grains  came  from  the 
East ;  their  development  was  no  easy  process  and  it 
needed  all  the  fertility  of  Mesopotamia2  and  cen- 
turies of  selection,  practised  under  favourable  condi- 
tions, to  create  the  refined  product.  If  there  had 
been  native  Greek  grains,  they  would  have  suc- 
cumbed to  the  superiority  of  seed  from  the  East, 
before  Homer's  time. 

It  is  a  hard  and  uncertain  task  to  identify 
grains  of  the  ancient  time ;  but,  to  take  the  surest, 
we  have  barley  and  wheat3  as  men's  food,  and 
lotos,  parsley,  marshgrass,  and  spelt4  for  horses.  It 
is  probable  that  Homeric  wheat  was  inferior  to  that 
of  the  present  day,5  and  perhaps  barley  was  held  in 
greater  honour  by  the  Greeks ;  certainly  it  was 
the  cult-grain,  and  was  as  highly  esteemed  as 
wheat.  Erom  wheat  and  barley,  flour  was  made.6 
Vegetables  are  found  sporadically  in  Homer;  on- 
ions, beans,  and  pease,7  for  instance.  Elax  is  not 
mentioned.  The  poppy  was  raised  in  the  garden  ; 8 
its  use  is  not  mentioned,  and,  since  narcotics  were 

1  ix,  130-135. 

2  Lippert,  I,  584  ff. 

3  V,  196  ;   VIII,  564  ;  XI,  69  ;  iv,  602-604. 
*  II,  776-777 ;  iv,  602-604. 

5  Buchholz,  I,  pt.  2,  226. 

6  See  pp.  45-46  below ;  ii  290 ;  cf .  Lippert,  I,  584  ff  ;  Buchholz, 
I,  pt.  2,  227. 

7  XI,  630  ;  xix,  233  ;  XIII,  588-590.  8  VIII,  306. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  41 

so  wonderful  to  Homer,  and  since  it  is  expressly- 
stated  that  they  came  from  Egypt,  it  is  likely  that 
the  Greeks  did  not  understand  the  qualities  of 
this  plant. 

The  above  products  demanded  no  fixed,  sedentary 
life  ;  when  we  come  to  vines  and  trees,  we  first  find 
ourselves  in  the  domain  of  a  more  farsighted  provi- 
dence of  life ;  for  oftentimes  trees  must  have  been 
set  out  and  vines  started  that  would  not  bear  fruit 
for  the  planter  himself.  The  planting  of  vineyards 
and  orchards  is  an  antithesis  of  nomadic  life,  and 
shows  an  intention  of  taking  up  permanent  abode 
for  one's  self  and  one's  children. 

The  chief  fruit-trees  were  the  fig,  olive,  pear,  and 
apple.1  To  these  were  added  infrequently  the 
pomegranate.2  Wild  species  of  the  olive  and  fig 3 
were  known.  The  date-palm  is  mentioned  but 
once,4  as  having  been  seen  at  the  shrine  of  Apollo 
in  Delos,  and  so  noticed  that  it  could  not  have  been 
in  common  cultivation.  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
fig,  olive,  date-palm,  and  pomegranate  needed  con- 
siderable artificial  aid  in  propagation,  perhaps  even 
to  the  extent  of  artificial  fertilisation.6  The  case  of 
the  date-palm  mentioned  points  conclusively  to  cult- 
selection  and  cultivation  as  the  first  means  of  rear- 
ing and  spreading  these  fine  trees.  But  the  nature 
of  the  fig,  olive,  and  other  more  common  trees  was 

1  xxiv,  246-247  ;  340.  *  vi,  162-163  ;  cf.  Pietschmann,  14. 

2  vii,  115.  6  Lippert,  I,  602  ff. 
8  v,  477;  xiii,  102;  VI,  433;  xii,  103. 


42  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

well  understood  by  the  layman ;  the  possessor  of 
trees  was  proud  of  them  and  spent  such  loving  care 
in  the  rearing  of  a  young  tree  that,  to  emphasise  a 
child's  careful  raising,  it  was  compared  with  the 
care  expended  upon  an  olive-shoot.1  The  impor- 
tance of  the  orchard  is  shown  in  the  epithet  of  a 
rich  farm  or  garden,  "  full  of  trees." 2  The  trees 
were  planted  in  some  order,  and  the  ground  about 
their  roots  carefully  loosened  from  time  to  time ; 
even  the  young  children  were  early  encouraged  to 
take  interest  in  the  raising  of  fruit.3  The  finest 
trees  were  found  in  the  garden  of  the  Phseacian 
king.4     Trees  also  played  a  part  in  the  cult. 

Vineyards  and  wine  were  to  Homer  even  more 
than  were  trees  and  fruit  ;  it  was  a  high  honour  to 
a  country  to  be  "  vineclad,"  5  and  the  possession  of 
good  vines  and  wine  was  a  sign  of  culture.  Great 
mirth  and  good-feeling  prevailed  at  the  vintage, 
when  youths  and  maidens  gathered  the  fruit.6  The 
best  orchard  and  vineyard  in  Homer  is  that  of 
Alcinous  ;  "  there  grew  tall  and  flourishing  trees, 
pears  and  pomegranates  and  apple-trees  bearing 
fine  fruit,  and  sweet  figs  and  blooming  olives."7 
In  this  orchard  there  was  fruit  the  year  around; 
pear  grew  close  on  pear,  and  fig  on  fig.  Grapes  were 
growing  in  all  stages  of  ripeness :  some  were  being 

1  XVIII,  438 ;  cf.  XVII,  53-56. 

2  iv,  737  ;  xxiii,  139.  *  XVIII,  561-572. 

3  xxiv,  226-227 ;  336-344.  7  vii,  114-116. 

4  vii,  112ff. 

6  III,  184;  xv,  406. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  43 

dried  in  a  sunny  spot,  others  were  being  plucked 
or  pressed  or  turned  to  the  sun ;  some  were  unripe 
and  some  just  ripening.  Vines  were  arranged  in 
orderly  rows,  and  next  to  them  were  plots  of  gayly 
blooming  flowers.1 

This  vineyard  and  orchard  are,  of  course,  in  large 
part  fanciful ;  they  belong  to  that  class  of  creations 
which  are  based  on  slight  knowledge  and  report, 
and  point  to  the  Phoenicians  and  the  East  as  the 
origin  of  tree  and  vine-culture.  This  view  is  also 
supported  by  the  fact  that  orchards  and  vineyards 
clung  to  the  sea-coast  and  were  found  chiefly  in 
those  spots  where  Phoenician  influences  might  have 
been  strongly  at  work.  The  towns  or  regions  de- 
nominated "  vineclad "  were  regularly  coast-towns 
or  districts,  in  lands  frequented  by  Phoenicians,  or 
they  were  towns  or  districts  of  the  East  itself,  or 
pictures  of  fancy.2  As  superior  vines  and  orchards 
were  a  mark  of  an  Eastern  culture-people,  so 
inferior  vines  and  a  lack  of  fruit-trees  distinguished 
segregated  barbarians.  Especially  was  this  true  of 
the  Cyclopes,  whose  isolation  we  know  ;  for  by  their 
lack  of  shipping  they  were  quite  shut  out  of  the 
civilised  world.3  On  Homer's  evidence  it  is  there- 
fore very  likely  that  the  culture  of  the  finest  trees 
and  vines  was  introduced  by  the  Phoenicians  from  the 
East.     Putting  together  the  significance  of  the  name 

1  vii,  117-128. 

2  II,  507;  537;  561;  IX,  152-153;  577-579  xxiv,  205  ff; 
III,  184;  v,  69;  vii,  112  ff. 

3  ix,  106  ff:  125-129. 


44  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

"  phoinix  " *  for  the  date-palm,  and  what  has  been 
learned  of  this  tree  in  Delos,  we  have  a  good  example 
of  the  spread  of  a  culture-product  from  the  plant 
or  animal  world.  This  dissemination  was  still  in- 
complete, for  it  had  yet  to  reach  the  common  people. 
The  processes  connected  with  husbandry  and 
fruit-raising  come  into  Homer's  notice  very  often, 
and  are  depicted  in  detail  on  the  Shield.  There 
is  sketched  the  thrice-ploughed  field,  over  which 
the  ploughmen  hasten  their  teams  to  gain  a  cup 
of  wine  at  the  furrow's  end;  likewise  the  field  of 
deep  grain,  in  which  the  sharp  sickles  of  the  reapers 
are  plying.  Close  behind  them  follow  the  binders, 
and  last  of  all  children,  gleaning.2  The  plough  was 
a  composite  piece,  not  a  single  stick ;  and  was 
drawn  by  oxen  or  mules.3  The  grain  was  mowed 
by  seizing  a  handful  of  stalks  and  severing  them 
with  a  curved  sickle.4  It  is  probable  that  farm- 
tools  were  of  iron,  for  farmers  had  to  go  to  the 
city  for  this  metal,  from  time  to  time.  Eeaping 
and  ploughing  were  manly  occupations,  and  matches 
are  spoken  of.5  Beans  and  the  like  were  winnowed 
by  being  thrown  up  against  the  wind  with  a  oar- 
like shovel,  on  a  winnowing-floor,  while  grain  was 
trodden  out  by  oxen.6     The  process  of  fertilisation 

1  Movers,  II,  pt.  1,  p.  3. 

2  XVIII,  541-560;  cf.  v,  127. 

3  XIII,  702-703;  viii,  124. 

4  XVIII,  551-552  (cf.  "  dragmata,"  552,  555) ;  xviii,  368. 
*  XXIII,  832  ff  ;  xviii,  366  ff. 

«  V,  499  ff ;  XX,  495-497 ;  xxiii,  275. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  45 

by  the  use  of  manure  was  well-known  and  irriga- 
tion of  crops  by  means  of  small  canals  was  com- 
mon.1 Vermin  were  a  plague  which  a  god  with  a 
special  function  was  supposed  to  avert.2 

Fruit-trees  were  fostered  by  careful  digging 
around  their  roots,  and  vines  were  set  to  climb 
trellises  and  arbours.3  Vines  and  trees  were 
planted  in  rows,  whence  the  name  orchatos.  A  rich 
man's  vines  and  trees  were  heavy  with  fruit ;  this, 
with  many  births  in  the  flocks,  with  plenty  of 
grain  and  fish,  was  good  fortune.4  Upon  private 
estates  the  workers  were  mostly  slaves ;  hired 
labourers  are  also  mentioned.5  As  these,  however 
received  little  beyond  clothing  and  food,  with 
probably  only  occasional  employment,  their  lot 
was  worse  than  that  of  the  slaves.  Achilles  men- 
tions as  the  most  deplorable  lot  that  of  being  a 
hired  labourer  under  a  poor  master.6 

FOOD   AND   ITS   PREPARATION 

From  the  preceding  pages  we  already  know  some- 
thing of  what  the  Homeric  Greeks  ate  and  drank. 
From  their  flocks  and  herds  they  drew  a  regular 
supply  of  meat,  which  was  their  chief  article  of 
diet.  From  barley  and  wheat  they  had  flour;  it 
was  ground  in  hand-mills  and  called  "the  marrow 

1  xvii,  297-299 ;  XXI,  257-262. 

2  I,  39. 

8  xxiv,  227  ;  XVIII,  561-572. 

*  xix,  111  ff. 

6  xxiv,  208-210;  xviii,  357-361.  6  xjf  489-491. 


46  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

of  men."1  How  this  was  prepared  we  can  only 
guess ;  considering  the  manner  of  cooking  of  the 
time,  it  is  supposable  that  the  "  bread  "  was  a  kind 
of  unleavened  cake  baked  in  the  ashes.  The  word 
sitos  came  to  stand  for  food  in  general,  which 
indicates  that  a  good  deal  of  grain  was  eaten.  The 
Greeks  so  often  made  a  meal  of  a  sacrifice  that 
meat,  the  chief  article  of  sacrifice  played  a  great 
part  in  their  diet.  They  knew  the  best  cuts  and 
were  fond  of  blood  and  fat.2  Beef,  mutton,  and  pork, 
and  the  wild  meats,  such  as  venison,3  were  eaten. 
Fowls  were  kept  as  pets  ;  eggs  are  not  mentioned. 

Of  the  vegetables,  onions  preserved  their  original 
use,  as  a  relish.  Other  relishes  or  combinations, 
probably  of  a  vegetable  variety,  were  prepared.4 
The  legend  of  the  Lotus-eaters  seems  to  point  to  the 
listlessness  and  lack  of  energy  due  to  a  food  entirely 
vegetable  and  not  very  nourishing  at  that.5 

Honey,  the  oldest  condiment,  was  much  prized 
and  was  the  symbol  of  sweetness.  It  was  probably 
wild  honey,  gotten  by  hunters,  though  we  find  bees 
depositing  their  stores  in  the  stone  jars  of  the 
nymphs.6  It  was  used  in  combinations  with  wine 
and  figured  in  the  treatment  of  the  dead.7 

There  is  clear  proof  in  Homer  of  the  fact  that  the 

1  xx,  106  ff.  7  x>  234;  519  ;  xx.  69. 

2  viii,  475-476 ;  xviii,  44-45. 
8  XVIII,  319. 

4  Lippert,  I,  583 ;  IX,  489 ;  iii,  479-480. 

6  ix,  94-97 ;  cf .  Lippert,  I,  453  ft. 

6  I,  249  ;  XVIII,  109  ;  xx,  69  ;  XII,  170 ;  xiii,  104-108. 


INDUSTRIAL    ORGANISATION  47 

taste  for  salt  is  an  acquired  one,  for  inlanders  did 
not  use  it.  It  is  not  mentioned  in  regular  sacrifice.1 
The  entire  supply  of  salt  seems  to  have  come  from 
sea-water  or  through  commerce.  Though  salt  was 
a  symbol  of  cheapness,  it  was  called  "  divine."  2 

It  is  remarkable  how  little  use  was  made  of  milk 
at  this  time.  The  food  of  young  children  was 
tender  meat,  marrow,  relishes,  fat,  and  wine.3  No 
mention  is  made  of  milking  cows ;  aside  from  the 
horse's  milk,  used  by  "  milk-eaters  "  of  the  North, 
we  hear  only  of  goat's  milk.4  Homer  seems  to  have 
thought  it  a  piece  of  luxury  that  master  and  man 
in  Libya  had  plenty  of  milk  ;  it  is  strange  that  this 
plenty  occurs  along  with  impossible  fancies  like 
that  of  horned  lambs,  and  that  the  verb  "  thesthai  " 
is  used.  The  Cyclopes  too  had  plenty  of  milk  and 
drank  it  "  unmixed."  5  All  this  seems  to  point  to 
a  scarcity  of  the  article  in  Greece.  Hard  cheese 
seems  also  to  have  been  regarded  as  something  of 
a  delicacy,  and  was  used  chiefly  to  grate  into 
wine.6  It  is  hard  to  reconcile  all  this  with  great 
herds  of  goats  and  kine,  and  .with  "  pails  full  of 
milk." 7  Milk  was  curdled  with  the  sap  of  the  wild 
iig-tree  ;  and  we  find  it  given  to  the  dead  in  Hades.8 

1  xi,  122-125;  cf.  IX,  214  ff. 

2  xvii,  455-457 ;  IX,  214. 

8  IX,  489-491  ;  XXII,  501 ;  xvi,  443-444. 

4  XIII,  5-6  ;  IV,  433-434. 

5  iv,  85-89 ;  ix,  297. 

6  xx,  69  ;  XI,  639-640 ;  x,  234-235. 

7  XVI,  642-643.  8  V,  902-903  ;  xi,  27. 


48  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

Polyphemus  had  baskets  of  curdled  milk  and  drank 
whey,  as  did  all  poor  slaves  in  Greece  itself ; 1 
possibly  the  milk  was  used  chiefly  for  making  this 
soft  cheese,  though  little  evidence  is  present  on 
the  point. 

Fish  were  eaten  in  times  of  necessity,2  but  seem 
to  have  been  regarded  rather  as  the  food  of  the 
poorer  classes.  As  has  been  said  above,  there  was 
a  regular  class  of  poor  fishermen  and  ferrymen  in 
Ithaca.  The  fish  might  have  been  an  "  old  "  food  ; 
the  epithet  "  sacred  "  seems  to  denote  this.3 

Of  drinks,  wine  was  the  great  and  only  staple. 
Water  was  admired  as  an  element,  but  was  not 
used  by  itself  as  a  drink ;  ships  were  rarely  pro- 
visioned with  water.4  Wines  were  sweet,  perhaps 
because  often  mixed  with  honey,  and  different  grades 
were  known.5  Wine  for  drinking  was  diluted  with 
water  ;  the  finest  and  strongest,  in  the  proportion  of 
1 :  20.6  The  effect  of  age  on  wine  was  well-known.7 
Drinking  was  libation  and  libation  drinking,  and  in 
several  other  ways  wine  was  employed  in  the  cult. 
The  finest  wine  of  the  poems  was  procured  from  a 
priest  of  Thrace,  a  country  noted  in  the  oldest  times 


1  ix,  222  ;  246-247  ;  xvii,  225. 

2  See  p.  30  above  and  references. 
»  Lippert,  I,  580  ff ;  XVI,  407. 

4  ii,  290  ff  ;  v,  265-266  ;  cf.  iv,  359. 

6  xx,  69  ;  VII,  467  ff ;  XI,  639 ;  XII,  320 ;  ii,  350 ;  ix,  20G  ff. 

6  No  doubt  an  exaggerated  estimate,  aiming  at  effect,    i,  110  j 
ix,  209. 

7  ii,  340-342;  iii,  391. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  49 

for  its  wines.1  Wine  "  refreshes  and  strengthens," 
but  drunkenness  is  found  only  a  few  times  in  the 
poems  and  is  much  reprehended  by  the  narrator.2 
A  combination  of  Pramneian  wine  with  grated 
cheese,  honey,  and  barley-meal  was  very  popular.3 

In  the  matter  of  food-preparation  comes  first  the 
manner  of  dealing  with  the  fire.  The  fire  was 
"  kept,"  especially  in  the  sparsely-settled  country, 
where,  if  it  went  out,  the  loser  had  to  take  a  long 
journey  to  borrow  coals  with  which  to  re-kindle  it. 
"  — As  when  one  hides  a  brand  in  the  black  ashes, 
one  who  dwells  on  a  far-away  field  with  no  neigh- 
bours, preserving  the  seed  of  the  fire,  that  he  may 
not  be  forced  to  seek  it  elsewhere."4  No  mention 
is  made  of  any  methods  of  igniting,  though  the 
boring-tools  of  the  builder  were  well-known.5 

In  cooking,  the  processes  were  very  simple ; 
roasting  on  spits,  and  in  the  ashes.  Eoasting  only 
is  mentioned,  in  connection  with  food-preparation 
and  sacrifice.6  The  Greeks  had  good  copper  and 
other  vessels,  however,  and  water  was  boiled  for 
baths ;  fat  also  was  boiled.7  Possibly  the  metal  of 
the  pots  would  have  injured  the  meats ;  at  any  rate, 
boiling  went  no  further.     A  variation  of  the  roast- 

1  ix,  206  ff  ;  cf.  Buchholz,  I,  80. 

2  VI,  260-261  ;  265. 

8  XI,  639-640;  x,  234-235. 

*  v,  488-490;  xx,  123  ff. 

5  See  p.  58  below ;  for  the  general  development  of  tools,  me- 
chanical processes,  etc.,  see  Tylor,  Anth.,  182  ff  passim. 

6  IX,  213  ff;  1,466. 

*  XVIII,  346-349  ;  XXI,  362-364  ;  cf.  Lippert,  I,  347  ff. 


50        .  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

ing-process  is  found,  where  the  meat  was  cooked  in 
the  skin  or  stomach  of  the  slain  animal.1  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  only  cooking-vessel  used; 
and,  probably  because  it  saved  the  blood  and  fat, 
the  method  was  highly  esteemed. 

MANUFACTUKES 

The  influence  of  other  nations  upon  Greece  in 
the  matter  of  the  arts-  and  their  products  has  been 
sketched  above.  In  Homer's  period,  foreign  pro- 
ducts, rather  than  processes,  were  known,  though 
the  latter  were  making  headway ;  what  was  foreign 
and  what  native  can  be  distinguished  only  in  the 
broadest  lines. 

The  metals  and  metallic  processes  have  always 
gained  a  great  share  of  attention  among  peoples 
advancing  in  civilisation.  Homer  uses  eight  terms 
which  may  refer  to  metals ;  four  of  these  are 
accepted  as  meaning  gold,  silver,  lead,  and  iron  ; 
there  is  doubt  as  to  the  nature  of  the  substances 
corresponding  to  the  terms :  chalJcos,  Jcassiteros, 
Jcyanos,  and  elektros. 

Regarding  the  first  of  these,  the  question  is  — 
"Did  the  Homeric  Greeks  possess  bronze,  or  is 
this  metal  merely  copper  ? "  If  copper  were  hard 
and  resisting,  or  if  we  knew  some  simple  process 
for  rendering  it  so,  there  would  be  no  reason  for 
assuming  bronze  at  all.  The  one  strong  argument 
for  bronze  is,  that  it  is  far  superior  to  pure  copper 

1  xviii,  44-45 ;  xx,  25-27  ;  cf.  Lippert,  I,  358-361. 


INDUSTRIAL    ORGANISATION        ,       51 

in  hardness  and  power  of  holding  a  cutting-edge, 
and  so  would  be  valuable  in  tools  and  weapons 
where  copper,  as  we  know  it,  would  be  practically- 
useless.  Other  peoples,  however,  have  got  along 
with  copper,  and  there  are  several  difficulties  to 
be  explained  away  before  accepting  bronze  as 
Homeric. 

First,  chalkos  is  "  ruddy  ;  " l  bronze  could  scarcely 
bear  such  description.  Also  the  second  constituent 
of  bronze,  tin,  was  very  rare;  and  when  it  was 
scarce  and  dear  in  Sidon,  it  is  not  likely  that 
foreigners  were  in  possession  of  a  large,  usable 
quantity.  At  a  much  later  period  tin  was  regarded 
as  an  almost  noble  metal,  and,  from  all  reference 
to  it  in  Homer,  the  conclusion  is,  that  it  was  used 
almost  exclusively  for  itself  alone,  as  ornament.2 
From  a  mechanical  point  of  view,  it  is  doubtful 
if  the  contrivances  of  the  time  could  more  than 
soften  copper.  For  the  fusion  of  this  metal  a  very 
high  temperature  is  needed.3  Common  bellows 
could  not  produce  this  heat ;  yet  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  difficulty  in  working  copper,  while  iron, 
which  can  be  fused  at  a  much  lower  temperature, 
and  easily  worked  at  700  degrees  C.  is  called  jpoly- 
kmetos*  Strongest  of  all  proof,  however,  rests  in 
the  silence   of   Homer  concerning  so  wonderful  a 

1  IX,  365,  cf.  XIX,  38. 

2  Lehmann,  II,  67  ;  XI,  25  ;  34 ;  XVIII,  565  ;  574 ;  XXIII, 
503;  561. 

?  1100°  C.  and  above;  see  Lippert,  II,  224. 

4  I.  e.,  "  wrought  with  much  labour  " ;  VI,  48.     Cf .  Tylor,  279. 


52  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

process  as  the  artificial  union  of  two  metals.  To 
alchemists  of  the  Middle  Ages  the  process,  though 
well-known,  was  something  almost  supernatural.1 
Horner,  who  draws  from  the  whole  domain  of  the 
arts,  has  no  word  or  phrase  that  can  point  to  the 
fact  or  process  of  alloy.  Chalkos,  the  most  common 
metal  in  Homer,  and  the  one  from  which  the  smith 
derives  his  name,  is  always  mentioned  as  a  single 
element.  If  chalkos  means  bronze,  there  is  no 
special  word  for  copper  in  the  poems.2 

On  the  whole,  it  seems  easier  to  accept  "  copper  " 
for  chalkos,  and  there  are  some  aids  to  this  view. 
None  of  the  early  metals,  even  of  mediaeval  alche- 
mists,3 were  used  in  a  pure  state.  The  copper  of 
the  Homeric  Greeks  may  well  have  held  some 
hardening  element ;  if  this  was  the  case,  the  ques- 
tion of  copper  versus  bronze  resolves  itself  into 
a  question  of  natural  versus  artificial  alloy.4  If  this 
is  the  issue,  one  need  scarcely  hesitate  to  support 
the  former  alternative.  Probably  the  imported 
weapons,  etc.,  of  the  Greeks  were  often  of  bronze ; 
and  very  likely  a  generic  name  (cf.  the  Latin  "ses") 
might  cover  all  combinations  whose  base  was  copper ; 
but  the  Greeks  themselves  knew  only  copper,  rendered 
hard,  perhaps,  by  reason  of  some  natural  alloy.6 

1  Lehmann,  II,  155  ff. 

2  Cf.  Gladstone,  J.  M.,  535. 

3  Lehmann,  II,  65. 

4  See  Ridgeway,  596  ff. 

5  It  is  softer  than  iron  and  stone ;  IV,  510-511 ;  cf.  Ill,  348  ; 
VII,  259:  XI,  237. 


DUSTRIAL    ORGANISATION  53 

is  used  chiefly  for  ornament  to 
lur.1  '  It  is  likely,  therefore,  that  it  was  shining 
ancWhowy.  It  is  called  "  flexible "  and  affords  a 
colour-contrast,  not  to  silver,  but  to  gold,  copper,  and 
kyanos.2  All  these  characteristics  point  to  tin.  It 
is  not  likely  that  the  Phoenicians,  who  catered  so 
zealously  to  the  desires  of  the  barbarians,3  neglected 
occasionally  to  tempt  their  good  customers,  the 
Greeks,  with  small  quantities  of  this  metal,  always 
a  good  drawing-card  in  the  frontier-trade.  Proba- 
bly, then,  the  Greeks  had  tin  in  small  quantities, 
used  almost  entirely  for  ornament. 

Kyanos  is  primarily  an  adjective  of  colour ;  dark- 
blue.  There  is  also  a  substance  bearing  the  name, 
which  is  used  with  metals,  and  appears  to  be  a  dec- 
orative material.  On  account  of  its  colour  it  has 
been  called  "steel."4  This  is  unlikely,  for  if  it 
were  steel,  it  would  not  be  used  exclusively,  if  at 
all,  for  ornament ;  and  though  we  know  of  the  tem- 
pering of  iron,5  we  know  of  no  process  like  cemen- 
tation, which  would  infuse  the  proper  amount  of 
carbon  to  produce  steel.  It  is  probably  one  of  the 
imported  Egyptian  enamels  mentioned  by  Maspero.6 

Mektros  has  come  to  be  distinguished  from  elektron 
(amber).     It  was  once  regarded  as  a  natural  mix- 

i  XI,  25;  34;  XVIII,  564-565;  613;  XX,  271 ;  XXI,  592. 
2  XVIII,  613;   XI,  24-25;  34-35;  XXIII,  560-561. 
8  Cf.  Lippert.  I,  298 ;  603-604. 

*  I,  528;  XIII,  563;  XX,  224;  XXII,  401-402;  XXIII,  188; 
cf.  XI,  35  ;  Buchholz,  I,  341. 

*  ix,  391  ff.  6  D.  of  C,  358 ;  cf.  Ridgeway,  I,  21. 


54  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 


scious  storrel 


ture  of  gold  and  silver  in  the  proportl 
also  it  is  taken  to  mean  "  jewel,"  "  precii 
For  the  latter  view  several  facts  speak.  First,  no 
jewels  are  otherwise  mentioned  in  Homer,  though 
Egyptians  had  succeeded  in  making  imitations  of 
precious  stones  in  the .  earliest  times ; 2  also  the 
word  elektros  is  used  in  the  plural,  a  fact  unpar- 
alleled in  the  cases  of  the  other  metals  ;  and,  lastly, 
these  articles  (plural  of  elektros)  are  "  set "  in  neck- 
laces.3 Elektros  does  not  occur  in  the  Iliad,  and  in 
the  Odyssey  comes  regularly  from  foreign  parts ;  it 
also  occurs  with  gold,  silver,  and  copper,  among 
enumerated  articles  of  wealth  and  magnificence.4 

Probably,  then,  the  Greeks  possessed  six  metals, 
—  gold,  silver,  iron,  lead,  tin,  and  copper.  There  is 
no  evidence  as  to  the  mining  of  any  of  these  metals, 
and  probably  they  were  chiefly  of  foreign  importa- 
tion. Gold  and  silver  were  especially  plentiful  in 
Egyptian  Thebes,  Sidon,  Alybe,  and  Cyprus.5  Alybe 
was  the  great  silver  station ;  and  both  Alybe  and 
Cyprus  were  Phoenician  colonies.  Copper  came  from 
Temese,  possibly  a  Phoenician  colony  on  the  island 
of  Cyprus.6  Beyond  this,  there  is  no  direct  evidence 
as  to  the  origin  of  the  metals.  Tin,  we  know,  came 
from  the  West  in  those  times.     It  is  likely  that 

i  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.,  XXXIII,  4. 

2  Lehmaun,  II,  66. 

8  xv,  459-460;  xviii,  294-295  ;  cf.  Friedreich,  p.  90,  and  art.  90. 

4  iv,  71  ff. 

6  IX,  381  ff ;  iv,  12.3  ff ;  617  ff  ;  II,  857  ;  iv,  83  ff. 

6  i,  182  ff;  ef.  "  cuprum";  "aes  Cyprium." 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  55 

iron  was  a  native  metal ;  ships  from  Taphos  carried 
it  to  Cyprus  to  trade  for  copper.  It  was  evidently 
worked  up  from  the  rough,  or  from  the  ore,  in 
Greece.1 

Some  idea  of  the  metallic  processes  may  be  gained 
from  a  knowledge  of  the  tools  of  the  smith.  They 
are  :  anvil  and  block,  a  large  crushing-hammer,  a 
smaller  hammer,  bellows,  tongs,  and  choanoi, 
which  term  is  taken  to  mean  "  smelting-oven." 2 
The  material  of  these  tools  is  not  specified.  These 
are  the  tools  which  Hephaestus  takes  to  make  the 
shield  of  Achilles,  so  that  they  doubtless  embody 
the  highest  instruments  of  the  smith's  art  known  to 
Homer.  The  crushing-hammer  suggests  the  break- 
ing of  the  ore  for  smelting.  This  smelting  is  prob- 
ably not  melting,  but  a  softening  of  the  ore,  so  that 
the  dross  can  be  hammered  out.3  Melting  and 
moulds  are  quite  improbable,  for  they  would  surely 
have  been  mentioned ,  the  metals  taken  to  make  the 
Shield  are  thrown  directly  into  the  fire.  All  early 
metal-work  depended  chiefly  on  hammering,  with 
or  without  heating  the  metal.  In  the  case  of  gold, 
silver,  tin,  and  copper,  this  was  simple  because  of  the 
softness  of  these  metals  in  an  unalloyed  state.  Be- 
yond the  method  of  shaping  (and  probably  riveting) 4 
fire-softened  metals  with  the  hammer,  no  other  can 
be  clearly  shown  in  Homer.     No  further  informa- 

1  i,  184  ff ;  cf.  Friedreich,  291 ;  XXIII,  832  ff. 

2  XVIII,  468  ff. 

8  Lippert,  II,  224  ff. 

*  Ranke,  Der  Mensch,  II,  609  ;  XVIII,  379  ff. 


56  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

tion  on  processes  is  obtainable,  except  in  the  case  of 
iron,  where  the  smith  understands  the  hardening 
effect  on  an  iron  tool  of  a  plunge  in  cold  water.1 

By  this  it  is  not  meant  to  assert  that  the  origi- 
nals of  such  structures  as  the  shield  of  Achilles,  the 
work-basket  of  Helen,2  etc.,  were  all  formed  by  this 
poor  process.  This  was  the  way  the  Greek  thought 
it  must  have  been  done,  as  he  knew  no  other 
methods  of  attaining  such  results.  The  very  vague- 
ness with  which  Homer  describes  the  process  of  the 
shield-making,  for  instance,  indicates  its  compara- 
tive unfamiliarity  to  him.  All  the  finest  metallic 
products  are  foreign  ;  that  imagination  enters  largely 
into  the  poet's  account  of  them,  is  shown  in  such 
fancies  as  the  golden  servants  of  Hephaestus,  his 
net,  his  automatic  bellows,3  etc. 

Products  of  metal-work  will  be  mentioned  from 
time  to  time  below ;  for  the  present  a  word  may  be 
said  on  the  general  use  of  the  metals.  Gold  seems 
to  be  more  valuable  than  silver,  though  the  differ- 
ence is  apparently  slight.  Gold  is  the  great  metal 
of  ornament,  of  course  ;4  it  is  more  lustrous,  does  not 
tnrnish,  is  more  costly,  and,  in  the  comparatively 
pure  state  in  which  the  Homeric  Greeks  used  it, 
more  malleable.    Divine  possessions  are  represented, 

1  ix,  391  ff. 

3  iv,  131  ff. 

8  XVIII,  417  ff;  468  ff;  viii,  274  ff. 

4  I,  15  ;  VI,  235-236;  VIII,  43 ;  X,  294;  XVIII,  373  ff;  XXIV, 
795  ;  i,  142  ;  iii,  384  ;  iv,  58  ;  131  ;  615-616  ;  v,  231-232;  x,  543  ;  xi, 
91 ;  xix,  226-229 ;  xxiv,  74. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  57 

reasonably  or  not,1  as  made  of  gold  and  silver.  Tin, 
as  has  been  said,  is  ornamental.  Copper  is  the  metal 
of  weapons,  offensive  and  defensive,  and  of  tools.2 
It  seems  to  rate  to  gold  somewhere  nearly  as  9 : 
100.3  Iron  appears  to  be  plentiful  and  to  be  used 
chiefly  in  agricultural  implements,  though  often  in 
weapons  and  cutting  tools.4  Use  of  lead  is  men- 
tioned but  once :  as  material  of  sinkers  for  fishing- 
lines.6 

Next  in  importance  to  metal-working  comes 
wood-working.  The  tools  of  the  wood-worker  are 
the  well-whetted,  double-edged  axe  and  the  hatchet, 
both  generally  of  copper,6  with  which  the  trees  are 
cut  down  and  the  beams  shaped.  Axes  and  hatchets 
of  iron  are  also  found.  Smaller  tools  and  weapons 
are  generally  of  ironJ  The  olive-wood  handles  of 
these  tools  are  fitted  into  holes  in  the  heads. 
Besides  these  instruments,  the  wood-worker  has 
an  adze,  a  scraper,  and  a  chalk-line.8  The  most 
complicated  tool  is  the  auger,  which  could  be  used 
by  one  man  or  by  several.     No  mention  is  made  of 

1  VIII,  442  ;  XVI,  183  ;  XVIII,  417-418 ;  XXIV,  340-341 ;  cf. 
1,49. 

2  IV,  461  ;  XI,  16,  etc.;  I,  236;  v,  234-235;  cf.  XI,  639-640; 
630;   XVIII,  349. 

8  VI.  235-236. 

*  XXIII,    832  ff;  IV,    123;   V,    723;    VII,   141;   XVIII,   34 ; 
XXIII,  30  ;  xxi,  97  ;  cf.  Ridgeway,  294  ft. 
6  XXIV,  80. 

6  XIII,  391  ;  XXIII,  114  ff  ,  V,  234-235. 

7  XXIII,  850-851  ;  xix,  573  ff ;  Leaf,  C.  to  H.,  299. 


58  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

the  material  of  the  auger;  of  course  it  could  have 
been  no  more  than  a  bar  of  wood  or  metal,  pointed 
or  ring-shaped  at  the  end.  When  worked  by  several 
operators,  a  strap  was  wound  about  the  shaft  and 
drawn  in  turn  by  two  men,  while  the  third  bore 
down  on  the  top ; 1  an  arrangement  whose  prototype 
was  the  primitive  fire-drill.  Since  no  other  method 
of  working  the  auger  is  mentioned,  it  is  likely  that, 
in  the  case  of  a  single  operator,  the  process  was 
analogous. 
J  A  better  idea  of  work  in  metals  and  wood  can 
probably  be  gained  by  the  aid  of  some  examples  of 
products,  which  will  appear  under  various  heads 
below. 

Much  of  the  skill  of  the  early  ages  was  employed 
in  the  fabrications  of  arms  and  armour.  Several 
primitive  weapons  appear  here  and  there  in  Homer, 
chiefly  among  the  barbarous  tribes.  The  Cyclops 
and  Orion  carried  wooden  clubs  and  a  war-mace  of 
iron  is  mentioned.2  In  one  case,  a  copper  axe,  with 
a  long  olive  helve,  is  said  to  have  been  carried  as  a 
secondary  weapon  by  a  Trojan.3  The  sling,  once  a 
noble  weapon,  had  sunk  to  the  use  of  the  common 
soldier:  no  hero  carried  one.  The  bow  and  the 
sling  were  used  by  the  Locrians,  who  did  not 
understand  other  kinds  of  fighting  tools.4  The  bow 
was  made  of  horn ;  in  one  case  described,  the  horns 

1  v,  246-247  ;  ix,  383-386. 

2  ix,  319ff ;  xi,  575  ;  VII,  138-141. 
8  XIII,  612-613. 

*  XII,  599-600;  713  ff ;  XIII,  713-716. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  59 

of  a  wild  goat,  each  sixteen  palms  long,  were  joined 
together  base  to  base  by  a  short  shaft,1  probably  a 
bar  of  wood,  which  was  apparently  run  into  both 
horns  to  a  certain  distance.  The  bow-string  was  a 
sinew,  well  twisted.2  The  arrows  were  of  reed, 
with  heavy  copper  or  iron  heads,  bound  in  the 
shaft  with  sinew,  and  generally  barbed.3  A  quiver, 
closed  at  both  ends,  was  used  by  Apollo  to  carry 
his  arrows.4 

The  position  of  the  bow  is  peculiar  in  Homer. 
It  was  used  chiefly  by  Trojans  and  Trojan  allies ;  its 
patron  god  was  the  Lycian  Apollo ; 5  among  Greeks 
the  best  archers  were  almost  always  those  who 
dwelt  near  the  sea,  in  districts  open  to  foreign  in- 
fluence —  Teucer  of  Salamis,  Philoctetes  of  Thessaly, 
Meriones  of  Crete,  and  Odysseus  of  Ithaca6  were 
the  great  bowmen.  This  would  point  to  a  foreign 
origin  of  the  bow  and  its  honour.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  heroes  of  a  former  generation,  Heracles  and 
Eurytus,  were  said  to  have  been  far  more  skilful  with 
the  bow  than  their  descendants.7  This  fact  would 
designate  the  bow  as  an  "  old  "  weapon,  rapidly  grow- 
ing obsolete.     Here  is  then  a  partial  contradiction, 


1  xxi,  395  ;  IV,  105  ff  ;  XI,  375. 

2  IV,  118;  XV,  463. 

3  XI,  584;  IV,  151  ;  XIII,  650;  XV,  465;  IV,  151  ;  V,  393; 
VIII,  297  ;  XI,  507. 

4  I,  45. 

,5  11,848;  IV,  196-197;  1,45 ff;  V,  103-105. 

6  XIII,  313-314;  II,  718;  viii,  219;  XXIII,  860  ff;  xxi,  xxii. 

7  viii,  223-224. 


60  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

with  the  bulk  of  the  evidence  pointing  to  the  bow 
as  a  foreign  introduction ;  perhaps  it  could  not  be 
naturalised  in  Greece.  It  appears  from  many 
indications  that  the  bow  was  somewhat  despised. 
In  the  Theomachy,  Hera  beat  Artemis  with  her 
own  arrows  and  expressed  great  contempt  for  her 
and  her  weapon ;  Paris  almost  always  carried  a  bow, 
and  the  bow  and  he  were  held  alike  in  contempt.1 
Pandarus  regretted  trusting  to  the  bow;  with  it 
he  wounded  Menelaus  and  broke  the  truce;  the 
moment  he  deserted  the  bow  for  a  manlier  weapon 
he  was  killed.2  The  bow  was  relegated  to  hunting 
and  games,3  and  appears  to  have  been  going  out  of 
use  for  purposes  of  war. 

Odysseus  used  poisoned  arrows,  but  the  public 
opinion  and  the  religion  of  the  Greek  race  had 
evidently  been  long  turned  against  the  custom,  for 
Odysseus  found  it  impossible  to  get  poison  from 
god-fearing  men.  He  got  it  finally  from  a  Phoeni- 
cian neighbourhood.4 

The  noble  weapons  of  the  time  were  spear  and 
sword.  "  Spearman "  is  the  commonest  word  for 
warrior.5  The  spear  was  generally  of  ash,  quite 
long,  sometimes  eleven  cubits,  its  copper  point  held 
in  place  by  a  ring,  in  some  cases,  of  gold.  The 
butt  was  blunt-pointed  for  sticking  in  the  ground. 

1  XXI,  481  ff  ;  III,  17  ;  XI,  385-387,  505-507 ; 

2  V,  205  ft;  290  ff;  IV,  104  ff. 
8  XXIII,  850  ff;ix,  156. 

4  i,  261  ff.     Cf.  Tylor,  221. 
6  1,290;  VII,  281. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  61 

It  was  used  for  throwing  and  thrusting.1  The 
sword  was  a  secondary  weapon,  usually  of  copper, 
which  broke  before  it  bent.  There  were  several 
sizes  of  swords,  one  of  the  largest  being  the  Thra- 
cian.  Swords  were  carried  in  sheaths  or  holders 
of  ivory,  and  probably  also  of  metal,  and  had  deco- 
rated hilts.2  These  were  the  regular  weapons  of 
war  ;  on  occasion,  axes,  hatchets,  and  boat-hooks  were 
used,3  and,  in  default  of  anything  better,  especially 
where  weight  was  wanted,  jagged  boulders  were 
resorted  to.4  The  order  of  weapons  was,  generally, 
first  spear  and  sword,  and  then  rocks  or  fists.5 

The  heroes  of  Homer  fought  regularly  from  a 
two-horse  war-chariot.  This  car  consisted  of  a  box 
with  raised  rim  in  front,  a  seemingly  springy  floor 
of  woven  straps,  an  oaken  or  metal  axle,  spoked 
wheels  with  rims  of  bent  wood,  tires,  sometimes 
of  copper,  and  a  pole,  to  the  end  of  which  the  yoke 
was  attached.6  The  horses  were  yoked  and  con- 
fined in  a  somewhat  complicated  harness.  Two 
men  rode  in  the  box,  one  driving  and  the  other 
fighting.7  To  resist  the  bounding  and  bumping, 
these    chariots    must    have    been    very    heavy   or 

1  VI,  319-320;  449;  X,  153;  XV,  278. 

2  III,  334-335;  363;  x,  261-262;  XIII,  576-577;  XXIII,  808; 
viii,  404  ;  I,  194  ;  XV,  713  ;  I,  219,  XI,  29-31. 

»  XV,*711;  677. 

*  III,  80  ;  V,  582  ;  XII,  178  ;  445  ff. 

5  III,  355  ff  ;  VII,  264  ff ;   XI,  265  ff. 

6  V,  722-731  ;  836  ;  XI,  537 ;  XVII,  440  ;  XXIV,  266-274. 

7  XVII,  440  ;  XIX,  393  ;  XXIV,  266-274  ;  see  Autenrieth  sub 
"  zugon";  V,  835  ff. 


62  HOMERIC   SOCIETY 

very  strongly  built.     Chariots  were  also   used   in 
travelling.1 

Armour  was  very  necessary  in  those  hand-to-hand 
fights  ;  even  under  the  greatest  provocation  a  hero 
would  not  appear  unarmed.2  The  head  was  pro- 
tected by  a  helmet  of  metal  or  leather,  strengthened 
by  knobs  of  metal,  covering  most  of  the  face  and 
strapped  under  the  chin.  The  helmet  had  a  crest 
of  horse-hair  to  increase  the  fearfulness  of  the 
warrior's  appearance,  and  was  sometimes  adorned 
with  teeth  of  animals.3  The  body  was  covered 
with  metal  plates,  belts,  etc.,4  extending  the  pro- 
tection toward  the  knee ;  below  the  knee  were 
buckled  greaves.5  The  feet  were,  apparently,  un- 
protected. Leather,  linen,  and  felt,  besides  metal, 
supplied  material  for  armour.6  The  shield  was  the 
great  defensive  piece,  and  reached  from  neck  to 
ankle.  Shields  were  generally  made  of  heavy 
leather  with  a  sheet  of  copper  on  the  outside ; 
the  shield  of  Ajax  had  seven  sheets  of  leather, 
piled  one  upon  the  other,  with  an  outer  covering 
of  metal;  the  whole  resembling  a  tower  in  form.7 
From  the  lower  rim  of  the  shield  depended  an 
apron   of   untanned   leather ;   the   metal-surface  of 

1  XXIII,  368-369  ;  iii,  486  ff. 

2  XVII,  711. 

»  111,371-372;  IV,  459;  XII,  183;  V,  182;  VI,  469 ;  X,  263- 
264. 

*  IV,  132  ff;  VIII,  195;  XI,  24-28;  XV,  530. 

5  III,  330-331. 

«  II,  529,  830  ;  X,  258  ;  335  :  XVII,  492-493. 

7  VI,  117-118;  XV,  479,  etc.  ;  VII,  219-223. 


INDUSTRIAL    ORGANISATION  63 

the  shield  was  embossed  for  strength,  and  it  was 
carried  by  means  of  bars  on  the  inside.1  On  the 
shield,  as  on  the  breast-plate,  were  worked  devices, 
some  possibly  totemic  in  original  significance;  the 
finest  work  of  this  kind  was  foreign  in  origin,  the 
best  example  of  it  being  the  shield  of  Achilles.2 

Aside  from  the  arms  of  war,  we  find  many  domes- 
tic utensils,  etc.,  in  the  possession  of  the  Greeks. 
A  wagon  with  four  wheels,  drawn  by  mules,  was 
in  use.3  Of  utensils  about  the  house,  copper 
tripods  with  ears  were  much  in  use  and  very 
valuable ;  wonderful  tripods  of  gold,  were  the  work 
of  Hephsestus.4  Mixing-bowls,  basins,  pitchers, 
and  cups,  of  copper,  silver,  and  gold  were  com- 
mon.5 Copper  jars  with  covers,  copper  baskets, 
copper  graters,  silver  bath-tubs,  milk-pails,  meat- 
dressers,  golden  torch-holders,  andirons,  funeral  urns, 
etc.,6  were  in  use ;  this  list  will  give  some  idea  of 
the  work  in  metals  and  of  the  articles  of  import 
from  the  East.  A  silver  basket  on  wheels,  or  a 
finely  decorated  bowl,7  would  sometimes  come 
directly  as  gifts  from  noble  persons  in  Egypt  or 

1  IV,  448;  V,  453  ;  VIII,  193;  xxii,  122. 

2  Cf.  the  Mgis;  XI,  24-28;  33-40;  XVIII,  478-479. 
8  XXIV,  189-190;  vi,  70  ff. 

*  VIII,  290  ;  XVIII,  346-349 ;  XXII,  443  ;  XXIII,  40  ;  264  5 
702-703  ;  XVIII,  373  ff. 

6  I,  471;  584;  598;  III,  247;  IX,  123;  469;  XI,  632-638; 
XXII,  494;  XXIII,  267-268;  741-743;  885;  XXIV,  234-235; 
304-305. 

6  V,  387;  IX,  206;  214-215;  X,  576;  XI,  630;  640;  XVI, 
642-643  ;  XXIII,  91-92;  ii,  353;  iv,  128  ;  ix,  222  ff  ;  xxiv,  74-75. 

7  iv,  125  ff ;  615  ff. 


64  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

Sidon,  such  utensils  being  often  the  work  of 
Hephaestus.  The  Greeks  had  also  skin  bags  to 
preserve  liquids,  bowls  (perhaps  of  wood)  woven 
baskets,  oil-cans,  etc.1  Jewelry,  which  probably 
included  some  cheap  stones  or  imitations,  and  was 
often  of  complicated  metal-work,  came  from  the 
East  or  belonged  to  the  gods.2  A  strange  thing 
is  the  absence  of  clay  vessels  in  Homer;  the 
potter's  wheel  is  mentioned,  but,  aside  from  this, 
references  to  work  in  clay  are  few  and  uncertain.3 
Weaving  of  baskets  was  one  of  the  homely 
occupations. 

The  wood-worker  was  regularly  the  ship-builder, 
though  small  boats  were  not  beyond  the  construc- 
tive skill  of  the  one  who  happened  to  need  them. 
We  know  how  small  boats  were  built  from  the  de- 
scription of  Odysseus's  operations ;  'processes  in  the 
case  of  larger  craft  were  doubtless  much  the  same. 
Odysseus  used  levers  in  launching  his  boat,  and  the 
same  mechanical  device  is  mentioned  elsewhere.4 

In  general,  the  ship  was  built  on  a  keel,  and  ribs 
were  fitted  symmetrically  ;5  a  sort  of  half-deck  was 
extended  over  the  rear  end  of  the  craft,  upon  which 
pilot  and  ship-master  sat,  and  benches6  were  fixed 

1  v,  265-267 ;  x,  19  ;  ix,  346  ;  XVIII,  568  ;  ix,  247  ;  vi,  79. 

2  xv,  460  ff ;  xix,  226-231  ;  XIV,  180  ff. 

3  XVIII,  600-601  ;  V,  387  ;  IX,  469. 
*  v,  234-240 ;  243-261  ;  XII,  448. 

6  v,  130;  xix,  574;  see  various  cuts  in  Autenrieth. 
6  XI,  600  ;  XV,  676;  728-729;  ii,  417-420;  xii,  411-412;  XX, 
247. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  65 

below  for  the  oarsmen.  The  pine  oars  were  bound 
by  straps  in  their  tholes,  and  the  rudder  was  only  a 
broader  oar.1  The  sails  were  probably  loom-woven 
at  home  and  the  rigging  was  generally  of  leather, 
though  sometimes  of  braided  papyrus.2  The  pine 
mast  was  arranged  to  stand  in  a  mast-holder  and 
was  held  by  stays  fore  and  aft;3  when  the  wind 
was  weak  or  adverse,  or  when  approaching  land,  the 
mast  was  let  down  and  the  sails  stowed  in  the 
ship.4  When  a  good  breeze  sprung  up,  rowing 
was  promptly  suspended,  the  mast  was  raised  and 
the  sails  spread.  Stones  were  used  for  anchors.5 
The  ships  were  fitted  with  pikes  and  poles ;  that 
one  man  could  push  a  ship  off  from  the  shallows 
with  a  pole  indicates  the  size  of  the  vessels  in  those 
days.6  Ships  were  painted,  usually  red  or  black,7 
and  were  of  various  kinds.  The  ship  of  burden 
was  wider  and  larger  than  the  ordinary  craft;  a 
ship  carrying  fifty  oarsmen  was  very  large,  though 
one  fleet  of  fifty  ships  is  said  to  have  carried  one- 
hundred  and  twenty  each.8  The  power  of  ships 
as  to  speed  and  resistance  will  be  mentioned 
below. 

1  VII,  4-6;  xii,  172;  iv,  782;  viii,  53;  VII,  88;  viii,  37;  xii, 
203-204;  ix,  540;  xii,  218;  iii,  281. 

2  xii,  423  ;  xxi,  390-391. 

3  I,  434 ;  ii,  424  ;  xii,  409-410. 

4  I,  432  ff;  iii,  11  ;  xii,  170-172. 

5  1,436;  XIV,  76-77. 

6  XV,  388-389;  677-678;  ix,  487-488. 

7  II,  637  ;  vi,  269. 

8  v,  249-250;  ix,  322-323;  II,  509-510;  XX,  247. 

5 


66  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

In  house-building  more  or  less  stone-work  was 
executed.  There  is  no  mention  of  fine  masonry 
done  by  the  Greeks,  and  it  is  thought  by  some 
that  all  stone-work  was  Phoenician.  Aside  from 
its  ordinary  uses  to  men,  stone  is  mentioned 
twice  in  Homer  as  the  material  of  possessions 
which  belong  to  the  nymphs ;  stone  looms  on 
which  they  worked  marvellous  things,  and  stone 
jars  in  which  bees  deposited  honey  for  them.1  This 
points  to  the  former  use  of  stone  utensils.  The 
Cyclopean  walls  2  suggest  something  the  same  line 
of  thought.  In  practical  Greek  life,  stone  was  used 
chiefly  for  buildings,  for  tombstones,  for  hand-mills, 
etc.  Anchor-stones  were  probably  bored,  as  were 
the  stone  landings  in  Scheria.3 

Habitations  were  little  variable  in  type.  The 
ruder  forms  of  dwellings  are  found  in  but  a  few 
cases.  Calypso  and  the  nymphs  lived  in  caves, 
which  fact,  in  connection  with  other  of  their  char- 
acteristics, may  point  to  a  former  time  when  such 
habitations  were  more  common.  The  Cyclops  was 
also  a  cave-dweller ;  he  built  merely  a  court  of  huge 
boulders  about  the  mouth  of  his  dwelling  for  his 
flocks.4  Aside  from  a  few  examples,  however,  the 
houses  were  substantially  alike  and  of  the  dis- 
tinctly Southern  type.     They  were  roofed  by  con- 


1  xii,  105-106;  xiii,  107-108. 

2  ix,  184  ff;  cf.  Lippert,  II,  173;  190. 

3  VII,  270;  XII,  161;   vii,  104;  xx,  106  ;  xiii,  77. 
*  v,  57  ff ;  ix,  183  ff;  xiii,  104-108. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  67 

verging  extensions  from  the  side-walls,  which  were 
supported  by  pillars  and  left  an  opening  in  the 
centre.  There  were  no  windows,  and  the  house 
grew  from  within  outward.  The  development  of 
the  house-plan  was  by  a  series  of  halls,  commenc- 
ing with  the  court-yard,  and  passing  through  the 
pillared  porch,  or  fore-hall,  to  the  megaron,  from 
which  small  rooms  opened  to  the  rear.  There  seems 
to  have  been  no  important  lateral  growth  to  the 
Homeric  house  ;  it  is  longitudinal,  and,  in  developed 
forms,  vertical.1 

The  fundamental  form  of  the  house  is  best  seen 
in  the  temporary  structures  of  camp-life.  The 
Myrmidons  built  for  Achilles  a  somewhat  preten- 
tious "  hut "  of  pine,  roofed  with  reeds ;  about  it  was 
a  great  court-yard  enclosed  with  a  hedge  of  thick 
stakes  and  a  single  door,  fitted  with  a  strong  pine 
bar.  Before  the  living-room  of  the  house  stretched 
a  fore-hall  where  visitors  slept  on  occasion.  Next 
to  this  porch  was  the  main  room,  and  further 
within,  a  secluded  sleeping  apartment,2  where  the 
master  and  his  wife  slept.  Other  houses  were 
merely  complicated  forms  of  this,  the  ground-plan 
of  the  Southern  house.  In  the  permanent  struc- 
tures, the  heavier  woods  were  used;  ash,  cypress, 
and  cedar,3  and  more  rooms  and  a  second  story  were 
added.     Under  the  patriarchal  system  of  the  time, 

i  Lippert,  II,  175  ff ;  cf.  Jebb,  Homer,  57  ff. 
*  XXIV,  449  ff;   673-674;   IX,  663  ff. 
8  Friedreich,  300. 


68  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

the  sons  generally  stayed  with  the  father ;  this 
house-plan,  therefore,  was  likely  to  be  augmented 
by  the  addition  of  small  chambers,  built  by  the 
sons  for  themselves  and  wives.1 

To  enter  somewhat  more  into  detail.2  The  whole 
establishment  was  surrounded  by  a  fairly  high  wall 
with  one  gate,  directly  in  front  of  the  house,  and 
leading  into  the  court-yard.  This  gate  usually 
opened  upon  a  road.3  In  the  court,  flocks  were 
kept,  and  its  condition  was  far  from  clean  or  sani- 
tary. Near  the  gate  was  a  small  out-building.4 
In  the  midst  of  the  court  was  the  altar  of  Zeus 
Herkeios,  where  sacrifices  and  libations  were  per- 
formed.    Cooking  was  also  done  in  the  court.5 

The  fore-hall  lay  entirely  open  to  the  court  and 
seems  to  have  been  scarcely  divided  from  it.  Cat- 
tle and  sheep  were  tethered  here,  pending  sacrifice.6 
The  name  aithousa  probably  indicates  the  smoky 
appearance  of  the  place.  In  this  porch  the  young 
unmarried  men  generally  slept;  also  the  humbler 
guests.7 

The  megaron  had  a  floor  of  hard-trodden  earth, 
which  was  cleaned  by  sprinkling  and  sweeping,  and 

1  xxiii,  178  fE. 

2  Cf.  Autenrieth,  plate  III. 

8  IX,  476;  xviii,  100  ff;  i,  103-104;  iv,  20-22;  XVIII,  496. 

4  IV,  433;  xv,  161  ff;  xx,  164;  XXIV,  164-165;  640  ;  xvii, 
297-299  ;  xxii,  466. 

6  XXIV,  306 ;  XVI,  231-232 ;  xxii,  333-336  ;  376-379 ;  XI, 
773-775;  ii,  300. 

6  xx,  176  ;   186. 

7  iii,  399-401 ;   iv,  297-305 ;  xx,  1  ff. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  69 

on  occasion,  by  hoeing.1  The  spilled  wine  of  liba- 
tion, blood  of  beasts,  and  ashes,  left  it  none  too 
clean.2  The  front  door  was  the  only  direct  exit, 
although  there  were  long,  narrow  passages  running 
from  the  rear  of  the  house  to  the  court  in  front.3 
Pillars  supported  the  ceiling,  which  was  blackened 
by  smoke.  The  smoke  was  intended  to  go  out  of 
an  aperture  in  the  centre  of  the  roof,  but  that  it 
generally  filled  the  room  is  indicated  by  the  epi- 
thet "  smoky,"  and  other  evidences.4  This  smoke 
came  from  the  braziers  and  torches  5  which  were 
used  for  cooking  and  lighting  in  those  days.  Meals 
were  generally  eaten  in  this  megaron,  and  the 
hearth  lay  at  its  inner  end.6 

At  the  lower  end  of  the  megaron  were  openings 
leading  into  the  smaller  rear  rooms,  and  to  the 
steep  ladder  or  staircase.  On  the  upper  floor  were 
rooms,  likewise  with  pillars,  where  weapons,  etc.,  were 
stored ;  here  were  also  the  women's  rooms,  where 
the  spinning  and  weaving  were  done.7  Seemingly 
to  the  rear  of  all  was  the  secret  chamber  of  the 
man  and  wife ;  in  Odysseus' s  house  it  was  the  one 
which  he  had  built  on  to  the  main  floor.8     A  trea- 

1  See  Autenrieth,  sub  u  megaron  " ;  also  plate  III ;  xxiii,  46  ; 
xx,  149-150;  xxii,  455-456. 

2  XXIV,  621  ff  ;   xix,  63-64. 

3  Cf.  xxii,  2  ff  ;  76  -77  ;    126-143  passim. 

4  viii,  66  ;  II,  414-415  ;  xxii,  239-240  ;  xix,  7-9  ;    18. 
6  i,  428  ;   ii,  105  ;  xviii,  307-311. 

6  i,  126  ff;    144  ff;   vii,  139;  153. 

7  i,  330;  356  ff ;  xxii,  176. 

8  xxiii,  178  ff. 


70  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

sure-room  is  also  mentioned,  to  which  there  was  a 
descent,  and  which  was  to  be  entered  by  the  use  of 
a  certain  hook  or  key.1  Doors  were  often  furnished 
with  simple  locks  or  latches,  and  were  swung  on 
hinges  that  worked  on  the  pivot  principle. 

Frequent  epithets  point  to  the  fact  that  the  Ho- 
meric house  was  strongly  constructed ;  the  Suitors 
made  no  attempt  to  break  through  the  walls.  Yet 
it  was  not  infrequently  built  by  the  owner  himself, 
with  some  aid,  perhaps,  from  the  professional  builder.2 
These  dwellings  must  have  been  fairly  large  also ; 
the  megaron  of  Odysseus  is  said  to  have  held  over 
one  hundred  men,  when  the  Suitors  and  their  fol- 
lowing were  all  there.  The  houses  were  generally 
plain,  but  were  sometimes  decorated  with  metal 
plates,  carved  torch-holders  of  gold,  and  golden 
dogs  ; 3  it  is  needless  to  say  that  this  magnificence 
was  foreign,  or  derived  from  foreign  sources. 

The  house  of  Priam  was  peculiar  in  itself,  seem- 
ing more  like  a  "  long-house "  than  do  any  of  the 
others  of  Homer.  It  was  made  of  polished  stone, 
with  sixty-two  chambers  of  the  same  material,  with- 
in; these  chambers  were  built  side  by  side,  and 
occupied  by  the  married  children  of  the  king.  This 
is  really  a  patriarchal  long-house,  and  is  further 
remarkable  in  being  built  entirely,  or  almost  en- 
tirely, of  stone.     Such  building  implies  considerable 

1  VT,  288-289  ;  ii,  337  ;  344-345  ;  xxi,  6-7. 

2  i,  333:  xxii,  24  ;  VI,  313-315. 

8  xvi,  245  ff ;  iv,  71-75  ;  vii,  86  ff  ;  91  ff  ;  102. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  71 

skill  in  stone-cutting.  Only  occasionally  is  there  a 
difference  so  marked  between  Trojans  and  Greeks. 
Stone  houses  are  found,  in  general,  where  foreign 
influence  might  have  been  strongly  at  work,  or  in 
pictures  of  the  fancy,  such  as  that  of  the  house  of 
Circe.1 

The  furniture  of  the  Homeric  house  presents  an- 
other good  example  of  Southern,  as  contrasted  with 
Northern  development.2  Chairs  and  tables  were 
the  chief  furniture  of  the  living-room ;  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Southern  type,  the  chairs  were 
heavy  and  immovable,  while  the  tables  were  merely 
platters  on  legs,  drawn  up  to  the  chairs.3  No  dishes 
were  used;  the  food  was  eaten  directly  from  the 
tables,  which  were  afterward  washed  with  sponges.4 

The  chairs  were  of  two  varieties,  not  dissimilar, 
and  fitted  often  with  footstools,  joined  to  the  chair- 
body.6  Stools  were  also  used  separately.6  Spear- 
racks,  chests,  etc.,7  completed  the  regular  furniture 
of  the  megaron.  Skins  and  rugs  were  used  to  sit 
and  recline  upon,  and  in  the  women's  room  was  a 
kind  of  lounge.8 

1  VI,  243-250;  x,  210-211. 

2  Lippert,  II,  199. 

8  XIV,  238-241;  xix,  56-58 ;  cf.  i,  145  ;  IX,  216;  XI,  628 ; 
XXIV,  476;  i,  111-112;  138;  iv,  51  ff ;  v,  196;  vii,  174;  x,  354 ; 
xii,  20 ;  74-75. 

4  i,  111-112;  xx,  151-152. 

5  XXIV,  515  ;  597  ;  cf.  Buchholz,  II,  pt.  2,  143  ;  IX,  219  ;  XIV, 
238-241  ;  i,  131. 

•  iv,  717  ;  xvii,  330. 

7  i,  128  ;  XVI,  221  ff.  8  i,  108  ;  IX,  200  ;  xviii,  190. 


72  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

Beds  were  set  up  on  posts,  and  the  frame-work 
bored  and  strung  with  leather  straps  and  decorated 
with  gold,  silver,  and  ivory.  They  stood  directly 
on  the  ground;  Odysseus  is  said  to  have  made  a 
bed-post  of  an  olive  stump  rooted  in  the  floor  of 
his  chamber.1  Beds  were  also  laid  on  the  floor  of 
the  megaron  and  fore-hall ;  rugs  and  skins  served 
for  coverings.2 

Articles  of  furniture  were  sometimes  decorated 
with  ivory,  and  leather  was  frequently  used  in 
their  manufacture.  It  is  remarkable  that  there 
was  no  bone-working  in  Homer's  time,  as  far  as  his 
evidence  goes ;  and  horn,  apart  from  its  use  in  the 
making  of  bows,  is  found  only  in  an  allegorical  con- 
nection.3 Ivory  was,  of  course,  a  foreign  product, 
and  was  polished  and  coloured.4  Leather  was  made 
from  the  skins  of  the  ox,  goat,  dog,  and  weasel.  No 
mention  is  made  of  tanning,  but  the  epithet  "  un- 
tanned  "  implies  a  knowledge  of  the  process.  Hides 
were  stretched  in  a  primitive  way,  by  the  hand- 
power  of  several  persons.5  Leather  was  used  for 
ropes,  shields,  helmets,  buskins,  and  gloves.6  Skins 
of  domesticated  animals  were  worn;  also  those  of 
the  lion,  panther,  and  wolf.7 

-1  xxiii,  189  ff;  201  ;  cf.  i,  437-440. 
2  XXIV,  644-646 ;  xiv,  49-51  ;  xix,  599. 
8  xix,  563. 

4  viii,  404  ;  IV,  141  ff. 

5  X,  335  ;  458  ;  xx,  2  ;  XVII,  389-393. 

6  xii,  423  ;  VII,  222  ;  XII,  22 ;  XIII,  160-161  ;  XVI,  360  ;  xvi, 
296 ;  X,  257-258  ;  335  ;  xiv,  24  ;  xxiv,  230. 

7  X,  23  ;  177  ;  III,  17  ;  X,  29  ;  334. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  73 

The  textile  industry  in  Greece  was  confined  al- 
most, if  not  quite  exclusively,  to  wool.  Spinning, 
combing,  and  weaving  were  done  by  the  women  and 
slaves  at  home ; 1  it  was  one  of  the  chief  duties  of 
the  housewife  to  make  the  clothes  of  her  family. 
Very  little  is  said  about  the  spindle  and  loom  in 
themselves ;  though  the  spindle  is  not  described  at 
all,  it  is  likely  that  the  distaff-and- weight  arrange- 
ment was  in  use.  Of  the  loom,  we  learn  that  it 
was  upright,  and  that  the  weaver  moved  back  and 
forth  before  it,  drawing  the  threads  of  the  woof 
through  those  of  the  warp,  which  were  probably 
weighted  at  the  end.  The  thread  of  the  woof  was 
carried  on  a  shuttle,  and  was  driven  home  with  a 
small  rod.2  Probably  oil  was  used  to  give  the  cloth 
a  gloss.3  Double  webs  are  mentioned,  and  some  in 
which  figures  and  the  like  were  worked ;  probably 
this  was  done  "  by  inserting  tufts  of  coloured  wool 
by  hand  in  the  web  as  it  advances  in  the  loom."4 
The  process  employed  in  linen-weaving  was  essen- 
tially the  same,  as  far  as  the  Greeks  knew  it ;  linen 
is  found  in  connection  with  the  East  or  Phoenician 
colonies,5  and  it  is  doubtful  if  it  was  woven  much 
in   Greece.      Of   linen   were    the   fine   peploi  and 

1  xviii,  316;  xxii,  422-423;  ii,  94-95;  104-105,  etc. 

2  I,  31  ;  XXIIL  761  ;  v,  62  ;  cf.  Autenrieth,  sub  "histos." 

3  III,  392;  XVIII,  595-596;  vii,  107. 

4  III,  125-126;  X,  133-134;  XXII,  440-441  ;  xiii,  224;  Leaf, 
92. 

5  11,529;  830;  III,  141;  VI,  289-295;  VIII,  441  ;  XVIII, 
595-596  ;  XXII,  511  ;  v,  232  ;  vi',  100;  vii,  107. 


74  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

veils.  In  the  making  of  fabrics  full  recognition  of 
superiority  was  accorded  to  Sidon  and  the  East; 
women-slaves  from  these  localities  did  this  kind  of 
work  best,  and  were  consequently  highly  prized.1 

In  Homer's  time  clothing  was  generally  woollen 
and  of  domestic  manufacture.  The  distinction  be- 
tween Southern  and  Northern  clothing  lies  in  the 
amount  of  material  and  in  the  closeness  of  the  fit ; 
clothing  of  ornament  versus  clothing  of  need.2  Greek 
clothing  was  not  wholly  the  one  or  the  other :  men 
and  women  wore  a  short,  close-fitting  tunic  next  the 
body  and,  of  course,  in  war  all  flowing  drapery  was 
out  of  place ;  but  beyond  this,  the  tendency  toward 
ornamental  dress,  here  as  elsewhere,  found  its  expres- 
sion in  quantity  of  material.3  Men  wore  a  cloak  over 
the  tunic,  which  cloak  during  the  night  commonly 
became  a  bed-covering,4  thus  betraying  its  character 
as  a  cloth  rather  than  a  garment.  In  the  case  of  the 
women,  the  regular  motives  to  ornament  prevailed, 
and  the  robes  were  sweeping.5  The  peploi  were  gen- 
erally of  linen  and  of  a  foreign  manufacture,  and  the 
veils  were  of  a  still  more  delicate  workmanship.6 
Possibly  the  epithet  "  deep-girdled  "  refers  to  extra 
quantity  in  dress.7    Webs  were  often  coloured,  gener- 

1  VI,  289  ff. 

2  Lippert,  I,  413-414  ;  428. 

3  Buchholz,  II,  pt.  2,  266 ;  cf.  xix,  232-233 ;  Lippert,  I,  410  ff. 

4  XXIV,  644-646  ;  xiv,  513  ff. 

5  XXII,  105 ;  etc. 

0  VI,  289  ff;  III,  141;  etc. 

7  VI,  294 ;  XVIII,  122;  cf.  Lippert,  I,  410  ff. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  75 

ally  purple,1  though  as  a  rule  clothing  was  "  shining 
white."  Clothes  were  washed  (by  stamping  upon 
them)  in  rivers  or  springs,  and  dried  on  the  rocks 
and  grass.2 

Skins  were  used  as  clothing,  especially  in  rough 
weather.3  Clothes  were  held  on  the  person  by  vari- 
ous ornamental  devices,  such  as  clasps  and  buckles.4 
Girdles  were  embroidered  richly;  other  ornaments 
were  ear-rings,  necklaces,  frontlets,  and  the  like,5 
all  the  best  being  in  some  way  connected  with  the 
gods  or  foreigners.  Ornament  was  one  of  the  great 
Phoenician  trading-articles,  naturally  enough. 

Sandals  were  worn,  but  only  on  stony  ground  and 
for  ornament;  various  buskins  and  gloves6  were 
in  use  with  those  who  worked  in  the  brush  or  among 
thorns. 

Olive-oil  was  employed  constantly  as  a  beauti- 
fying and  useful  ointment.7  No  oil  from  butter 
is  mentioned ;  the  Greeks  probably  made  no  butter, 
and  would  have  regarded  such  ointment  as  a  mark 
of  barbarism.8  The  indications  are  that  perfumes, 
derived,  of  course,  from  the  East,  were  in  great 
demand.9 

In  its  perception  of  colour  the  Greek  eye  was  not 

1  III,  125-126  ;  X,  133-134;  xix,  242. 
«  XXII,  147  ff ;  vi,  59 ;  92  ff. 

3  III,  17  ;  X,  23 ;  29  ;  177  ;  334 ;  xiv,  530. 

4  V,  425;  X,  133  ;  XIV,  178  ff  ;  xviii,  293. 

5  XIV,  178ff ;  XXII,  468-470;  v,  231;   xv,  460. 

•  XIV,  178-186;  xv,  550;  xiv,  23-24;  xxiv,  229-230. 

7  X,  577  ;  vi,  220 ;  etc. 

8  Lippert,  I,  538-540.  »  VI,  483. 


76  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

discriminating  in  a  high  degree ;  the  chief  distinc- 
tions recognised  were  between  white  and  black,  dark 
and  light.  Red  also  was  prominent,  as  among  all 
semi-civilised  peoples,  and  its  companion,  purple,  was 
probably  only  a  slightly  darker  shade  of  red.  The 
blue  of  the  sky  and  sea  is  not  referred  to,  nor  is  the 
green  of  foliage,  nor  is  any  other  of  the  colours  of  the 
spectrum  distinctly  noticed.  There  is  no  reason  for 
suspecting  more  than  an  untrained  colour-sense  and 
an  undeveloped  terminology.  Gladstone  says  ;  "  As 
a  general  proposition,  then,  I  should  say  that  the 
Homeric  colours  are  really  the  modes  and  forms  of 
light,  and  of  its  opposite,  or  rather  negative,  dark- 
ness :  .  .  .  and  here  and  there  ...  an  inceptive  effort, 
as  it  were,  to  get  hold  of  the  other  ideas  of  colour."  1 
The  prominence  of  red  is  marked  by  the  fact  that 
ships  were  painted  bright  red  and  that  clothing, 
especially  of  kings,  was  dyed  purple.2  Remembering 
the  purple-fisheries  of  the  Mediterranean,  it  is  not 
hard  to  guess  whence  the  colouring  substances  used 
in  dyes  were  derived. 

To  conclude  the  products  of  the  industrial  organ- 
isation, the  following  may  be  named  at  random. 
Hardened  fat  was  put  up  in  round  cakes  or  wheels ; 
the  Suitors  used  it  to  limber  up  Odysseus's  bow.  Wax 
also  was  put  up  in  cakes  for  use ; 3  the  composition 
of  this  wax  is  not  revealed.     Pitch  is  mentioned 

i  Gladstone,  J.  M.,  489. 

2  II,  637;  VI,  219  ;  X,  133;  XV,  538. 

8  xxi,  178-180;  xii,  173. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  77 

once,  as  is  felt  (from  Boeotia).1  Sponges  were 
regularly  used  in  cleaning.2  Sulphur  was  a  great 
purifier,  then  as  ever.3  Narcotic  drugs  came 
from  Egypt  and  poisons  probably  from  a  Phoeni- 
cian source.  From  Egypt  the  papyrus  for  rigging 
might  well  have  been  derived.4  No  saltworks  are 
mentioned,  but  salt  was  evidently  made  from  the 
sea-water. 

The  Greeks  engaged  to  some  extent  in  collective 
undertakings,  which  have  their  bearing  on  the  idea 
one  should  get  concerning  the  Greek  industrial  or- 
ganisation. War  brought  the  need  of  fortifications, 
such  as  the  wall  of  the  Greek  camp.  This  was  a 
structure  of  logs  and  stones,  covered,  at  least  part 
way,  with  a  mound  of  earth.  There  was  before  it. 
a  ditch,  planted  with  stakes,  and  upon  it  were 
towers.  Double  gates,  strong  and  well-fitted,  swung 
on  hinges,  and  were  fastened  by  crossing  bolts.  The 
structure  was  braced  with  beams.  The  undertaking 
was  so  magnificent  that  it  rendered  the  gods  jealous, 
especially  as  it  had  been  built  without  due  sacri- 
fices.5 A  wall  built  by  Athena  and  the  Trojans  to 
protect  Heracles,  is  mentioned.  Cities  were  also 
walled ;  Ilion's  battlements  were  built  for  pay  by 
Poseidon  and  Apollo.     High  towers  surmounted  the 

1  IV,  277  ;  X,  265. 

2  XVIII,  414;  i,  111;  xx,  151. 

3  XVI,  228;  xxii,  481-482. 

4  iv,  227  ff ;  i,  260-262  ;  ii,  328-329;  xxi,  391. 

6  VII,  337-342;  XII,  29;  258-261;  386;  454-459;  VII,  446  ff; 
XII,  17  ff. 


78  '  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

gates,  which  were  fitted  with  strong  double-doors.1 
Amphion  and  Zethus  walled  in  the  city  of  Thebes. 
Against  fortifications  no  battering-rams  were  used ; 
assault  seems  to  have  been  the  only  means  of  sur- 
mounting them.2 

Further  we  find  extensive  dikes  and  dams,  to 
hold  rivers  in  their  course.  The  breaking  of  these 
meant  devastation.3  The  word  for  dike  is  the  one 
later  used  for  bridge ;  this  fact  may  indicate  the 
origin  of  the  latter  structure,  which  is  not  mentioned 
in  Homer.  The  use  of  the  word  is  carried  over 
figuratively  into  war,  and  from  the  noun,  a  verb 
"  to  dam  up,"  "  fill  up  "  (and  so  bridge  over)  seems 
to  have  been  derived.  The  closest  approach  to  a 
real  bridge  in  Homer,  is  where  a  great  elm  falls 
into  a  river,  blocking  its  fair  stream  with  thick 
branches  and  "  damming "  it  over.4 

It  cannot  be  supposed  that  roads  were  artificially 
treated  in  early  times ;  lack  of  roads  in  Persia,  at 
a  much  later  date,  virtually  brought  disintegration 
to  the  Empire.  But  well-beaten  and  frequently 
followed  routes  are  a  great  social  advance ;  and 
these  the  Homeric  Greeks  had.  Koads  varied  from 
simple  paths  to  respectable  wagon-roads.5     Eegular 

i  XX,  145-148;  VII,  452-453;  VI,  386;  XVIII,  275-276. 

2  xi,  264-265  ;   VI,  433  ft. 

8  V,  88-92. 

*  IV,  371;  VIII,  378;  553;  XI,  160;  XX,  427;  XV,  357; 
XXI,  243-246. 

6  XXI,  137  ;  xvii,  234 ;  XIII,  335  ;  XXII,  146  ;  XXIII,  330  ; 
419;  427;  x,  103-104;  158;  xiii,  123-124. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  79 

streets  in  the  settlements  and  towns  were  familiar 
enough,  and  the  houses  generally  fronted  closely 
on  them,  while  permanent  wagon  and  other  roads 
between  towns  were  evidently  in  use,  and  performed 
a  respectable  social  function.1  That  roads  were 
"  dusty "  indicates  that  they  were  well-worn  and  / 
much-travelled.  Apparently  little  care  was  ex-/ 
pended  on  road- mending.2 

In  the  construction  of  settlements  and  towns  the 
Greeks  were  orderly.  The  camp  before  Ilion  had 
its  tiers  of  ships,  its  paths  and  assembly-place. 
The  settlement  was  by  contingents  and  the  posts 
of  danger  were  assigned  to  the  most  capable 
fighters.  The  whole  situation  was  favourable  for 
defence,  lying  as  it  did  between  two  headlands.3 

In  the  selection  of  sites  for  settlement,  in  those 
days  of  violence,  the  same  desiderata  obtained. 
Towns  were  founded  on  high  ground  or  around 
an  elevation,4  which,  in  case  of  the  storming  of  the 
place,  was  the  last  standing-ground.  Settlements 
would  naturally  be  located  near  a  water-supply ; 
and  for  towns  along  the  sea,  a  fine  harbourage  was 
a  feature.5  Houses  fronted  on  a  road  and  appear 
to  have  been  within  hearing  distance  of  each  other ; 

1  VI,  391  ;  XV,  682-684;  XVIII,  493  ff;  XX,  254  xxiii,  136; 
VI,  15;  cf.  202. 

2  XIII,  335;  XXIII,  420  ff. 

3  I,  328  ;  VIII,  222-226 ;  X,  66 ;  XIV,  33-36. 

4  II,  538 ;  573  ;  581 ;  XX,  216-218  ;  cf.  Ilion  ;  xix,  432  ;  etc. 

6  II,  522-523;  533;  XXII,  147  ff;  vii,  129-131;  xvii,  205- 
206;  I,  431  ff;  i,  185-186;  ii,  391. 


80  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

fire  could  sweep  over  a  number  of  dwellings.1  Settle- 
ments were  the  centres  for  supplies,  and  so  must 
have  had  some  merchant  population.  The  cities 
of  Egypt  and  those  connected  with  the  East  were 
the  finest  and  richest;  Egyptian  Thebes  had  one 
hundred  gates  and  Boeotian  Thebes,  seven.  Popu- 
lation was  little  concentrated,  however ;  Crete  was 
renowned  for  her  ninety  towns  in  Homer's  time.2 

In  the  study  of  processes  and  products  a  certain 
idea  of  the  craftsmen  has  been  obtained.  It  remains 
to  consider  the  industrial  class  with  reference  to 
division  of  labour  and  differentiation  of  industry. 
Specialisation  of  craft  or  trade  is  found  only  on 
the  broadest  lines ;  often  the  Homeric  hero  could 
turn  his  hand  to  anything  with  good  success.3  In 
agriculture  there  was  no  specialisation  of  function 
of  any  permanence  or  importance;  the  slaves 
were  men-of-all-work,  and  the  free  labourers  no 
better. 

The  first  distinct  specialisation  is  that  of  the 
smith,  who  did  almost  all  the  work  done  in  metals.4 
The  smith  derives  his  name  and  the  names  of  his 
tools  from  the  metal  copper,5  but  his  operations 
were  by  no  means  confined  exclusively  to  that 
metal.  He  worked  in  gold,  silver,  tin,  and  iron  ; 
and  his  function  did  not  stop  even  there.    He  sewed 

i  II,  29;  133;  xxiii,  136;  XVII,  737-738;   XXI,  522-523. 

2  XXIII,  832-835;   IX,  381  ff;  402-403;   IV,  406;    xix,  172  ff. 

8  v,  234  ff;   xxiii,  189  ff. 

4  Cf.  IV,  485  ff  ;  xxiii,  200. 

6  iii,  432  ;  433  ;  xviii,  328. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  81 

the  leather  parts  of  shields,  etc.,  and  otherwise  sup- 
plemented his  main  work.  There  is  in  Homer  no 
clearly  marked  case  of  a  division  of  labour  in  the 
manufacture  of  a  single  product.  The  metal  with 
which  he  worked  was  given  to  the  smith  by  his 
employer,  and  there  is  no  case  of  a  smith  receiving 
pay  for  his  work.  We  can  only  guess  at  the  nature 
of  his  remuneration  ;  in  some  cases  he  may  have 
been  a  client.1 

The  antecedents  of  the  smith  point  to  a  foreign 
origin,  at  least  in  the  case  of  the  best  workmen. 
Hephaestus  was  most  at  home  on  the  island  of 
Lemnos.2  It  is  thought  by  Lippert  that  the  smith, 
at  least  the  copper-smith,  was  a  Phoenician  product, 
along  with  the  vineyards  and  olive-orchards  which 
he  cultivated.  The  early  smith  is  supposed  by  him 
to  have  united  the  business  of  wine-selling  with 
his  regular  occupation ;  his  house  was  the  inn  or 
lounging-place  of  the  settlement.3  This  would  indi- 
cate that  the  smiths  were  not  itinerant,  but  main- 
tained a  definite  location.  Other  evidence  seems 
to  show  that  they  moved  about  more  freely  ;  at 
any  rate,  they  were  not  confined  to  the  region  of 
the  ore-deposits. 

Another  craftsman,  regarded  as  even  more  impor- 
tant than  the  smith,  was  the  "  building-man,"  —  he 
had  no  special  name  as  yet.     The  term  was  a  broad 

1  IV,  187  ;  XII,  295-297  j  iii,  432  fE. 

2  I,  594  ;   viii,  283-284. 

8  Lippert,  I,  604 ;  630  ;  II,  220-222  ;  cf.  xviii,  328. 
6 


82  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

one ;  the  tekton  made  everything  whose  material 
was  wood  and  also  handled  accessory  materials, 
decorative  and  the  like.  The  whole  craft  of  wood- 
working was  little  specialised  within  itself;  the 
builder  regularly  went  to  the  mountain  for  the  wood 
he  needed,  and  cut  it  down  himself ; 2  though  some- 
times wood-cutters  were  apparently  a  separate  class.2 
There  was  a  qualitative  distinction  between  skilful 
and  less  skilful  builders,  a  fact  which  proves  that  a 
number  of  men  were  engaged  in  this  trade.  The 
lord  of  a  house  and  a  people  was  his  own  master- 
workman  in  some  cases.3  The  builder  was  also 
ship-builder  and  made  even  the  sails ;  he  made 
chairs,  and  worked  in  gold  and  ivory  in  decorating 
them ;  and  he  was  the  regular  house-builder.4  The 
chariot-maker  was  not  called  tekton  and  seems  to 
have  been  a  separate  craftsman ;  he  did  the  work 
in  iron,  leather,  etc.,  which  the  chariot-making 
required.  A  prince  is  also  found  working  at  his 
own  chariot.5 

The  stone-work  in  Homer's  time  was  apparently 
but  little  shaped,  and  was  done,  in  general,  by  un- 
trained workmen.  The  hand-mills  and  stone  wash- 
ing-troughs, if  they  were  artificial,  would  probably 
have  demanded  some  skill  and  tools.     In  the  houses 


1  IV,  485-486 ;  XIII,  389-391  ;  XVI,  482-484. 

2  XIII,  180;  XVI,  633-634 ;  XXIII,  315. 

3  VI,  314-315  ;  xxiii,  188  ft. 

4  V,  62  ;  XIII,  389-391  ;   XV,  410-412;  v,  243  ff;  ix,  126-127  ; 
xix,  56  fE ;  VI,  314-315  ;  XXIII,  712  ;  xvii,  340-341. 

6  IV,  485-486  ;  XXI,  37-38. 


INDUSTRIAL    ORGANISATION  83 

of  Priam  and  Circe,1  all  of  polished  stone,  high  skill 
was  evidently  at  work,  but  it  was  probably  not 
Greek.  It  is  unlikely  that  there  were  regular  stone- 
masons among  the  Homeric  Greeks. 

A  shield-cutter  from  Bceotia  is  mentioned,  who 
would,  of  course,  have  worked  in  leather;  most 
leather-work  and  sewing,  however,  was  domestic.2 
Grain  was  "  broken  "  regularly  in  hand-mills  by  the 
female  slaves.3  Pottery  and  the  potter  receive  little 
attention.  Basket- weaving,  rope-twisting,  tanning, 
etc.,4  as  well  as  all  the  other  crafts  mentioned  above, 
presented  little  specialisation ;  these  operations  could 
be  easily  grouped  under  home-industry,  smithery, 
and  building. 

There  were  no  special  classes  of  merchants  and 
sailors.  The  heroes  and  their  followers  rowed  their 
own  ships  and  traded  but  little,  as  we  shall  see. 
The  word  "  sailor  "  referred  rather  to  a  sea-voyager 
than  to  a  professional  seaman,  when  it  was  used 
of  a  Greek.5  In  the  Greek  force  before  Ilion  there 
were  pilots,  steersmen,  and  stewards,  who  seldom 
came  to  the  assembly.  It  is  unlikely  that  there 
was  any  specialisation  of  importance  here ;  most  of 
these  were  mere  servants  or  followers,  and  the  pilots 
could  have  been  of  but  small  use  in  strange  waters, 
if  the  Greeks  had  to  have  a  prophet  to  show  them 

1  XVI,  212-213;  xxiii,  188  ff;  VII,  270;  ii,  355;  vii,  104;  xx, 
108;  XXII,  154-155;  VI,  242  ff  ;  x,  253. 

2  VII,  221  ;  XVII,  389  ff ;  ii,  354  ;  xiv,  23-24. 

3  XI,  631  ;  XIII,  322  ;  vii,  104  ;  xx,  108. 

4  ix,  247  ;  x,  166-167  ;  xx,  2.  5  XV,  627  ;  cf.  i,  171-172. 


84  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

the  way  to  Ilion.  Those  steered  and  piloted  who 
were  the  most  skilful  at  it ;  it  was  not  a  profession.1 
There  was  a  regular  class  of  fishermen  among  the 
poor,  who  became  carriers  when  the  chance  offered ; 
and  for  the  getting  of  sponges  and  shell-fish  there 
were  divers.2 

It  is  hard  to  say  upon  just  what  social  footing  all 
these  craftsmen  were;  but  there  was  certainly  a 
class  of  free  wage-earners.  Very  likely  the  fishermen 
and  others  of  the  above-mentioned  craftsmen  were 
free  also.  The  gods  appear  as  wage-earners,  as  does 
Heracles  ;  3  Heracles  was  to  be  paid  in  horses.  We 
find  two  gold  talents  paid  for  watch-service  for  one 
year,4  probably  to  one  of  the  employer's  comites. 
A  poor  woman  weighed  the  wool  she  was  spinning, 
carefully,  "  to  gain  a  scanty  wage  for  her  children."  5 
In  this  case  it  is  uncertain  whether  the  work  was 
done  with  the  worker's  own  material  or  the  em- 
ployer's, though  from  analogy  the  latter  arrangement 
would  be  the  more  probable.  Wages  on  a  farm  were 
clothing  and  food.6  The  wage-earners  were  called 
thetes,  which  name  may  possibly  refer  to  some 
conditional  arrangement.  Apollo  and  Poseidon 
served  for  an  (orally)  stipulated  wage;  no  work 
was  assigned  until  the  arrangement  was  concluded. 
No  oath  or  promise  was  exacted,   apparently,  and 

1  XIX,  42-45  ;  I,  71-72 ;  iii,  279  ff. 

2  xvi,  349;  xxii,  384;  xxiv,  419;  XVI,  745-748;  750;  XII, 
385  ;  xii,  413. 

8  V,  642  ff.  5  XII,  433-435. 

4  iv,  525-526.  6  x>  84_85  .  ^iviii,  357  ff. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  85 

when  the  work  was  done,  the  mortal  task-master 
refused  to  pay,  and  sent  the  gods  off  with  threats  of 
slavery  or  mutilation.  The  same  Laomedon  cheated 
Heracles  in  a  like  case ; 1  all  of  which  casts  light 
upon  the  stability  of  the  beginnings  of  the  contract- 
system.  The  workers  for  hire  were,  as  we  have 
seen,  more  miserable  than  the  slaves.  In  view  of 
later  developments  in  Greece,  it  is  interesting  to 
notice  that  manual  labour,  in  Homer,  is  the  employ- 
ment of  princes  and  nobles,  and  that  it  is  something 
of  an  honour  to  be  a  good  workman.  For  cattle- 
raising,  agriculture,  and  manufacture  only  the  great- 
est respect  and  admiration  were  expressed;  these 
vocations  were  the  preservers  of  life  and  the  givers 
of  luxury,  and  their  best  forms  were  as  yet  too  new 
and  attractive  to  be  regarded  with  indifference  or 
contempt. 

TRADE 

What  has  already  been  said  about  ships  and 
shipping  shows  that  a  sea-faring  life  was  far  from 
safe  in  Homer's  time,  and  there  are  other  reasons 
why  the  sea  came  to  be  known  as  a  barrier  2  rather 
than  as  an  avenue  of  communication.  The  Greeks 
deplored  any  death  which  was  not  followed  by 
funeral  rites  and  cremation,  and  drowning  was  re- 
garded as  inglorious.3  Besides  this,  the  unknown 
seas  were  fraught  with  terror;  if  the  predecessors 
of  Vasco  da  Gama  dreaded  the  equator  and  its  belt 

1  XXI,  444-457  ;  V,  642  ff. 

2  I,  155  ff.  8  XXI,  281  ff ;  i,  234  ff. 


86  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

of  monsters,  much  more  did  the  early  Greeks  fear 
the  awe-inspiring  Unknown.  They  believed  that 
the  sea  was  full  of  great  monsters,  and  peopled  the 
straits  with  creatures  like  Scylla  and  Charybdis. 
Great  courage  was  necessary  for  the  undertaking 
of  even  a  short  voyage.1  In  those  days,  men  also 
believed  that  the  outlying  parts  of  the  world,  to 
which  any  sailor  might  be  carried  by  a  tempest, 
were  inhabited  by  savage  races,  which  were  terrific 
in  stature,  knew  no  pity  for  strangers,  and  were  fond 
of  human  flesh.  And  if  one  escaped  all  these,  there 
still  remained  the  Phoenician  kidnappers  and  pirates, 
a  danger  scarcely  less,  capture  by  whom  meant  life- 
long slavery  in  a  foreign  land.2  It  is  a  proof  of 
great  courage  that  the  early  Greeks  dared  to  sail 
the  seas  at  all.3 

Journeys  by  sea  were  not  made  by  night  except 
in  great  exigencies ; 4  the  regular  practice  was  to 
beach  the  boats  at  evening  and  proceed  on  the 
course  the  next  morning.  Circuitous  routes,  which 
kept  the  land  always  in  sight,  were  the  regular 
ones;  to  strike  straight  across  the  iEgsean,  for 
instance,  was  a  piece  of  great  daring,  to  be  under- 
taken only  under  guidance  of  well-propitiated  gods. 
At  the  first  sign  of  rough  weather,  a  run  was  made 
to  the  nearest  inlet  or  harbour,  the  ship  was  beached, 
and  the  crew  waited  for  calmer  weather  and  a  good 

1  xii,  85 ft;  ii,  361-365  ;  xvi,  142-145. 

2  See  pp.  3-4  above ;  xv,  415  ff. 

»  Cf.  Horace,  Odes,  I,  iii.  4  ii,  434 ;  v,  270  ff. 


INDUSTRIAL    ORGANISATION  87 

breeze.1  The  ship  was  a  prey  to  the  tempests 
because  it  was  small  and  low  and  scantily  decked 
over;  and  owing  to  ignorance  of  the  operation  of 
sailing  into  the  wind,  ships  were  often  wind- 
bound  for  many  days,  until  starvation  was  im- 
minent. Eounding  a  promontory  was  an  extremely 
hazardous  feat;  Odysseus  and  Menelaus  were  both 
blown  off  to  sea  while  attempting  to  double  Cape 
Maleia.2 

Achilles  says  that  with  a  good  breeze  he  could 
reach  home  (about  200  miles,  direct)  in  something 
less  than  three  days ;  estimating  from  this  and 
other  vague  data3  *we  can  only  say  that  voyages, 
especially  over  the  favoured  circuitous  routes,  must 
have  been  very  long  and  slow.  These  examples 
were  taken  under  favourable  conditions  ;  rowing  was 
still  slower,  and,  against  a  heavy  wind,  apparently 
impossible.  It  is  not  necessarily  by  a  poetic  fiction, 
therefore,  that  a  man  should  have  been  gone  from 
home  ten  years,  or  should  have  wandered  ten  years 
over  the  earth,  and  that  the  bravest  should  have 
feared  the  sea.  All  this  explains,  too,  why  the 
Greeks  at  Troy  were  so  in  ignorance  concerning 
happenings  at  home.4  Yet,  in  spite  of  it  all,  the 
age  of  Homer  knew  some  travellers  and  emigrants ; 

1  iii,  159  if ;  iv,  360  ff. 

2  xii,  325  ff ;  ix,  80 ;  xix,  187  ;  iii,  287. 

3  IX,  363  ff;  ii,  395  ff;  iii,  169  ff;  xiv,  257  ff;  cf.  Gladstone, 
Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  III,  276-280. 

4  xvi,  18;  cf.  cases  of  Odysseus  and  Menelaus;  111,240-244; 
iii,  305  ff;  xviii,  261-264. 


88  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

it  knew  some  embassies  from  distant  lands,  and  a 
great  expedition  on  the  sea.  It  is  needless  to  say 
that  the  gods  were  supplicated  fervently  on  oc- 
casion of  long  sea-voyages.1 

It  cannot  be  said  that  the  Greeks  were  a  mer- 
chant-people in  Homer's  time.  There  was  no  ship- 
trade  carried  on  by  the  Greeks;  it  was  only  by 
mishap  that  they  got  to  Egypt  or  Sidon.2  Greeks 
joined  the  pirates  or  Taphians  for  raids ;  Achilles 
sent  prisoners  to  Lemnos;  and  Odysseus  went  to 
Ephyre  for  poison  3  (with  no  export  cargo) ;  but  of  a 
Greek  carrying-trade  there  were  only  the  first 
beginnings.  The  Greeks  were  those  to  whom  the 
Eastern  merchants  came;  they  were  the  sought, 
and  had  not  as  yet  become  seekers.  They  were  the 
lower  culture-stage,  exploited  and  imposed  upon  by 
those  who  wanted  their  goods.  Homeric  trade  was, 
therefore,  somewhat  one-sided,  as  is  all  frontier- 
trade  ;  and  its  history  casts  light  upon  the  contact 
of  Greek  and  foreigner  only  as  such  approach  took 
place  upon  Greek  soil. 

Before  discussing  the  trade,  it  is  in  order  to 
consider  the  land-communication  of  the  time.  No 
land-trade  is  mentioned  beyond  the  interchange  of 
country  and  city  commodities.4  Booty-raids  and 
tribal  wars  were  frequent  enough  to  render  land- 

1  i,3;  VI,  152  ff;  XXIII,  296-299;  VI,  168  ff;  iii,  178  ff;  cf .  iv, 
351  ff. 

2  iii,  285  ff ;  but  cf.  xiv,  246  ff ;  VI,  290-292. 

8  xvi,  426  ff ;  xvii,  425-426 ;  XXI,  40  ;  i,  260-261. 
*  XXIII,  832  ff. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  89 

trade  very  uncertain  and  perilous.  Yet  it  is  certain 
that  the  remotest  parts  of  Greece  were  more  or  less 
closely  in  communication  ;  marriage  was  contracted 
between  a  woman  of  Sparta  and  a  man  of  Phthia, 
the  royal  houses  of  Greece  and  their  genealogies 
were  widely  known,  and  the  Trojan  Expedition 
gathered  forces  from  almost  all  the  districts  of 
Greece,  under  the  system  of  guest-friendship.1  In 
guest-friendship  we  shall  find  both  the  cause  and 
result  of  much  of  this  mutual  knowledge  ;  amidst 
all  the  turmoil  of  an  age  of  violence,  there  is  noth- 
ing to  indicate  that  mutual  friendly  relations  had 
arisen  under  the  enforced  peace  of  a  single  great 
king's  sway.  And,  apparently,  interrelation  never 
took  the  form  of  trade ;  travels  inland  were  mostly 
cattle-raids  and  visits.  Journeys  were  made  with  a 
chariot  and  pair.2 

To  return  to  trade,  then,  which  was  virtually 
confined  to  the  sea.  The  Phoenician  trade  was 
divided  above  into  the  carrying  of  manufactures, 
of  cultivated  plants  and  animals,  and  of  slaves. 
In  Homer  the  culture-plants  and  animals  do  not 
appear  in  the  direct  trade ;  proofs  of  their  Eastern 
origin  are  less  direct.  A  great  number  of  manu- 
factured articles,  on  the  other  hand,  were  brought 
into  Greece;  but  it  is  noticeable  that  the  most 
valuable  and  complicated  of   them  were  regularly 

1  iv,  5;  cf.  798;  XI,  222-224;  VI,  145  ff;   VII,  125-128;  XI, 

769  ff. 

2  xxiiiv357 ;  xv,  80-85  ;  iii,  481  ff. 


90  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

introduced  otherwise  than  through  trade ;  they  were 
gifts  from  famous  Phoenician  or  Egyptian  hosts, 
brought  home  by  Greek  wanderers.  Such  articles 
apparently  never  came  through  the  common  trad- 
ers ;  these  traders  must  therefore  have  dealt  rather 
in  the  commoner  metal  utensils  and  ornament,  in 
unworked  metals,  etc.1  It  seems  fair  also  to  suppose 
that  most  of  the  Greek  metals  and  metal  utensils 
came  through  the  Phoenician  trade.  No  smiths  are 
introduced  as  making  tripods,  etc. ;  the  processes  of 
the  Greeks  would  have  made  it  a  very  long  and 
laborious  task  to  construct  metal  utensils  at  all ; 
and  it  would  have  been  much  easier  to  buy  such 
utensils  with  their  abundant  grains  from  the  Phoe- 
nicians, who  were  evidently  frequent  visitors.  The 
conclusion,  for  manufactured  imports,  would  be, 
then,  that  unworked  metals,  together  with  utensils 
and  fabrics  of  the  simpler  kinds,  formed  the 
chief  components  of  trade  from  the  importer's 
standpoint.  The  slave-trade  was  popular;  Greeks 
bought  Phoenicians'  slaves  promptly  —  through 
these  slaves  they  were  getting  the  Eastern  pro- 
cesses themselves. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Greeks  understood 
the  advantages  of  this  trade  with  the  Phoenicians, 
despite  all  its  drawbacks.  This  is  shown,  among 
other  evidences,  by  their  preference  for  cities  on 
the  sea-coast.2     The   Greeks  were  not   unsophisti- 

1  Cf.  i,  183-184. 

2  II,  538;  575;  584;  640;  697;  IX,  153. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  91 

cated ;  they  called  the  Phoenicians  "  cheats  "  and 
"sneaks,"1  and  their  attitude  was  rather  one  of 
tolerance  for  the  sake  of  benefits  derived.  The 
story  of  the  slave  Eumseus  illustrates  the  frontier- 
trade  in  its  earlier  stages,  together  with  many  Phoe- 
nician characteristics  which  there  has  been  occasion 
to  mention  before. 

Eumseus  was  the  son  of  the  king  of  Syrie,  an 
island  rich  in  flocks,  grains,  and  vines.  To  this 
island  came  the  "Phoenician  rogues,  fine  seamen, 
bringing  numberless  trinkets  in  their  black  ship." 
The  father  of  Eumaeus  had  in  his  house  a  Phoeni- 
cian woman-slave,  whom  a  lustful  sailor  violated. 
She  herself  had  been  kidnapped  by  Taphians  and 
sold  to  her  present  owner;  and  readily  agreed  to 
steal  her  master's  son  and  valuables  for  passage- 
money,  if  the  Phoenicians  would  take  her  home 
again.  The  utmost  pains  were  taken  to  conceal 
the  relations  between  the  woman  and  her  con- 
federates, lest  the  master  should  destroy  them 
all.  The  traders  meanwhile  hastened  the  return- 
cargo  and  filled  the  ship  with  goods,  remaining 
a  whole  year  in  the  place  and  frequenting  the 
town.  The  members  of  the  crew  peddled  their 
wares  to  the  various  households ;  the  women  looked 
them  over  and  handled  them,  "  promising  the  price." 
When  the  ship  was  groaning  full,  a  signal  was 
given  to  the  Phoenician  woman,  who  carried  off' 
the  boy  and  several  valuable  utensils  to  the  ship. 

1  xiv,  288-289  ;  xv,  419. 


92  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

On  their  return  homewards,  the  Phoenicians  touched 
at  Ithaca,  and  Laertes  brought  Eumaeus  "  with  his 
(Laertes's)  possessions"  and  made  him  a  swine- 
herd.1 

Phoenician  trade  did  not  delay  in  accommodating 
itself  to  irregular  and  favourable  chances.  From 
Lemnos,  a  centre  of  trade  in  those  days,  ships  plied 
to  the  great  camp  about  Ilion,  carrying  wine ;  from 
Thrace  also,  they  came  very  frequently,  likewise 
with  wine.2  It  is  distinctive  of  such  trading- 
conditions  that  the  merchants  virtually  bought  the 
privileges  of  trade  by  fine  presents  to  the  chiefs.3 
Other  trading- voyages  between  iEgsean  ports  occur, 
and  there  are  indications  of  a  passenger-carrying 
business,  where  a  fare  was  paid.4  With  a  strange 
mixture  of  duplicity  and  honesty,  Phoenicians  set 
the  pseudo-Odysseus  ashore  at  the  wrong  place,  yet 
with  all  his  goods  intact.5 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Phoenicians  did  not 
hesitate  to  sack  and  burn,  instead  of  trading,  when 
the  opportunity  was  offered.  The  age  was  one  of  vio- 
lence; booty-wars  were  a  regular  practice  on  land, 
and  were  not  dishonourable.  On  the  sea  and  coast, 
piracy  was  as  common  and  as  little  reprehended. 
The   sea-going   stranger   was    either    merchant    or 

1  xv,  403-484. 

2  Buchholz,  II,  pt.  I,  173  ;  VII,  467-468 ;  IX,  71-73 

3  VII,  470-471  ;  XXIII,  744-745. 

4  i,  183-184  ;  ii,  318-320;  xiv,  334-335  ;  xv,  449  ff ;  xxiv,  300- 
301. 

6  xiii,  272  ff. 


INDUSTRIAL    ORGANISATION  93 

pirate,  welcome  in  either  case,  if  he  came  in  peace. 
"  Oh,  strangers,  who  are  ye  ? "  the  greeting  was, 
"whence  sail  ye  the  watery  paths?  Is  it  on  busi- 
ness, or  do  ye  wander  recklessly  over  the  sea,  like 
pirates,  who  roam  about,  staking  their  lives  and 
bearing  ill  to  men  of  another  land  ? "  *  It  is  notice- 
able that  piracy  was  practised  upon  foreigners ; 
this  indicates  that  the  practice  came  with  mari- 
time trade  and  a  realisation  of  the  value  of  cargoes. 
Friedreich 2  thinks  the  Phoenician  trade  stimulated 
the  Greeks  to  piracy  because  that  was  an  easy  way 
to  get  goods.  In  Homer's  time,  Greek  pirates 
were  not  often  found ;  if  the  Taphians  were  real 
Greeks,  which  is  doubtful,  it  would  seem  that 
Greek  trade  on  the  sea  began  with  piracy. 

In  Homer  is  found  the  first  note  of  contempt  for 
the  merchant-class ;  whether  it  arose  from  disgust 
with  the  rapacious  Phoenicians,  or  otherwise,  is  not 
clear.  When  Odysseus  refused  to  enter  the  Phaea- 
cian  athletic  contests,  Euryalus  awoke  his  deep  re- 
sentment by  taunting  him  with  being  a  mercenary 
supercargo,  "  a  leader  of  sailors  that  are  merchants."  i 

In  the  development  of  exchange,  various  means 
of  measuring  and  various  standards  of  value  came 
into  play.  Weighing  was  naturally  enough  con- 
nected with  the  precious  metals,  especially  with 
gold.  The  unit  of  weight  was  the  talent  (this  name 
being   the  same  as  the  term  for  scales),  and   the 

i  See  pp.  293  ff  below;  iii,  71-74  ;  ix,  252-255. 
2  Real.,  277.  8  viii,  159-164. 


94  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

weighing  apparatus  used  was  of  the  beam-and-pan 
variety.1  These  scales  are  employed  in  Homer  only 
in  weighing  gold  and  wool,  and,  figuratively,  in 
weighing  the  fates  of  men.2 

Measures  were,  in  general,  derived  from  objects 
and  forces  in  nature  —  from  the  body,  bodily 
strength,  etc.  In  linear  measure,  we  find  the  palm, 
cubit,  and  foot;3  besides  these  there  was  the  pel- 
ethron,  fathom,  the  cast  of  a  discus,  a  shepherd's 
staff,  a  stone  or  a  spear,  the  carrying-power  of  the 
voice,  the  length  of  a  furrow  made  by  two  mules  in 
a  fallow  field,  etc.4  Of  course  several  of  these  are 
merely  rough  estimates  of  distance.  In  square 
measure  there  were  circumlocutions  with  some  of 
the  above  linear  terms,  and  the  gyon.  In  meas- 
uring capacity  only  the  indefinite  "  measure "  was 
used.6  There  were  regular  measuring  staffs,  and  a 
regular  verbal  form  for  the  process  of  measuring.6 
In  actual  counting  the  decimal  system  was  in  use ; 
counting  on  the  fingers,  by  fives,  is  found  in  an  iso- 
lated case.7 

Of  writing  the   genuine   Greeks  were   ignorant; 

1  XXIII,  269  ;  751 ;  VIII,  69-72 ;  XII,  433-435  ;  XXII,  209-212. 

2  XIX,  223-224  ;  XXII,  209-212. 

8  IV,  109;  XV,  678;  xi,  311  ;  XV,  729;  XXIII,  164. 

*  XXI,  407;  xi,  577;  XXIII,  327;  ix,  325;  x,  167;  xi,  312; 
XXIII,  431  ;  523  ;  845;  III,  12  ;  XV,  358 ;  XVI,  589;  v,400;  viii, 
124. 

5  XXIII,  164;  xi,  25;  IX,  579;  VII,  471  ;  XXIII,  264;  268; 
ii,  355. 

6  XII,  422;  iii,  179;  xii,  428. 

7  11,510;  516;  523;  556;  etc.;  iv,  412. 


INDUSTRIAL    ORGANISATION  95 

the  word  later  used  for  the  process  means  merely 
to  "scratch"  or  "graze"  in  Homer.1  The  super- 
cargo seems  to  have  kept  track  of  his  goods  by 
memory,  and  agreements  were  oral.  Certain  signs, 
identifiable  only  by  the  man  who  made  them, 
were  put  on  lots  in  lot-casting.2  There  is  one  case 
which  seems  to  go  much  further.  Proetus  was  en- 
raged at  Bellerophon  because  of  the  alleged  advances 
of  the  latter  toward  Prcetus's  wife.  Proetus  sent 
him  off  to  his  wife's  father  to  be  killed  :  "  He  sent 
him  to  Lycia  and  gave  him  tokens  of  ruin,  scratch- 
ing on  a  folded  tablet  many  fatal  signs,  and  bade 
him  show  it  to  his  (Prcetus's)  wife's  father,  that  he 
might  perish."  The  messenger  arrived  at  his  desti- 
nation and  was  entertained ;  in  due  time,  and  as  a 
matter  of  course,  his  message  was  asked  for.  Its 
import  was  at  once  apparent  to  the  host.  Of  course 
this  evidence  is  far  from  sufficient  for  the  establish- 
ment of  any  categorical  conclusions  ;  high  authority 
inclines  to  the  view  that  these  signs  were  "ideo- 
grams "  or  the  like,3  which,  of  course,  would  have 
been  universally  understandable.  They  may  have 
been  more  highly  developed  "  signs  "  than  this ;  in 
the  case  before  us,  these  signs,  many  in  number, 

1  IV,  139;  XI,  388;  XIII,  553;  XVII,  599;  XXI,  166;  xxii, 
280 ;  cf .  xxiv,  229. 

2  viii,  163  ;  XXI,  445  ;  VII,  175  ;  183  ff. 

8  VI,  168 ff ;  cf.  J.  R.  S.  Sterrett,  "Tokens  of  Woe/'  Nation 
(N.  Y.),  Sept.  9,  1897  ;  he  says  :  "  —  the  bent  arm  holding  a  scim- 
itar-like weapon  was  amply  sufficient  to  indicate  to  the  king  of 
Lycia  what  his  worthy  son-in-law  expected  of  him  in  the  matter  of 
Bellerophon."     See  Ridgeway,  209  ff. 


96  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

were  evidently  clear  in  their  meaning  to  the  recip- 
ient of  the  message,  but,  it  must  be  supposed,  en- 
tirely unintelligible  to  the  bearer.  The  messenger, 
for  various  reasons,  would  have  had  considerable 
interest  in  investigating  the  contents  of  his  message, 
and  the  king  would  hardly  have  exposed  his  pur- 
poses in  a  pictograph  whose  meaning  was  obvious  to 
any  one.  Again,  the  host  of  the  story  was  accus- 
tomed to  receive  such  messages.  In  this  case  the 
appearances  speak  for  an  alphabet,  known  to  Proetus 
and  his  father-in-law.  Proetus  seems  to  have  been 
a  usurper,  and  the  location  of  his  wife's  home 
indicates  Eastern  affiliations.  We  know  that  the 
Greek  and  all  other  European  alphabets  date  back 
to  the  Phoenician  ; *  therefore  it  is  likely  that  Phoe- 
nician settlers  in  Greece  would  have  been  able  to 
use  an  alphabet  while  the  Greeks  were  as  yet  igno- 
rant of  such  an  art.  However  the  question  is 
viewed,  the  conclusion  as  respects  the  Greeks  them- 
selves can  scarcely  vary  ;  to  them  the  art  of  writing 
was  yet  to  come. 

The  trade  of  Homer  was  carried  on  through 
barter.  Any  commodity  was  money  ;  there  was  no 
idea  of  using  metals  alone  —  the  talent  was  merely 
a  weight.  Copper,  iron,  skins,  cows,  and  slaves 
were  traded  for  wine ;  one  bought  "  with  his  posses- 
sions." 2     But  the  money  of  account  was  regularly 

1  Maspero,  Hist.  Anc,  599  ff ;  Pietschmann,  285 ;  Meyer,  237  if ; 
Tylor,  ch.  vii. 

2  VII,  467  ff ;  i,  430  ;  xiv,  115;  xv,  483. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  97 

the  ox ;  things  were  valued  at  so  many  "  oxen's- 
worth."  l  This  selection  was  a  natural  one ;  the  ox 
was  chosen  from  the  list  of  commodities  as  any- 
standard  of  value  is ;  oxen  were  a  universal  form  of 
property,  and  stood  for  a  real,  tangible  value. 

The  following  are  some  examples  of  value-rating 
in  Homer.  A  tripod  was  worth  two  horses  and  a 
chariot,  or  a  female  slave  ;  or  it  was  worth  twelve 
bulls.  When  a  tripod  was  worth  twelve  oxen,  a 
female  slave  who  "knew  many  works "  was  valued 
at  only  four.2  Four  prize-horses  with  chariots  were 
worth  a  herd  of  kine  and  three  hundred  sheep  with 
their  shepherds.  A  prisoner  brought  the  worth  of 
one  hundred  oxen  to  his  captor;  afterwards  he 
bought  himself  from  his  purchaser  for  thrice  the 
amount.  A  basin  that  had  not  been  exposed  to  the 
fire  was  worth  an  ox.3 

There  was  no  banking,  of  course ;  treasures  were 
kept  in  treasure-rooms  at  home.  But  the  temples 
were  very  rich  4  and  so  appear  to  have  been  at  least 
preparing  for  their  later  function.  Guest-friendship 
made  the  host  his  guest's  banker,  in  as  far  as  the 
term  is  applicable  to  Homeric  conditions. 

The  distinction  between  poor  and  rich  was  accen- 
tuated. The  hired  farm-labourer  was  wretched, 
and    some  men   were   too   poor   to   have  sufficient 

1  VI,  236  ;  VII,  467-475 ;  XXI,  79  ;  XXIII,  702-705 ;  xxii, 
57-59  ;  i,  430-431. 

2  VIII,  290-291 ;  XXIII,  703-705. 

3  XI,  696-700 ;  XXI,  79-80 ;  XXIII,  885. 

4  IX,  404-405. 

7 


98  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

bedclothes  for  themselves  and  guests;  beggars 
were  not  infrequently  met  with,  and  servants  were 
not  burdened  with  a  surplus  of  raiment.1  On  the 
other  hand,  some  men  were  immensely  rich;  they 
had  much  gold  and  copper,  much  clothing,  many 
flocks,  horses,  and  slaves,  much  grain  and  many 
orchards  and  vines,  much  treasure  in  utensils  and 
fine  large  houses.2  Any  of  the  products  mentioned 
in  preceding  pages,  possessed  in  quantity,  consti- 
tuted wealth.  As  an  example  of  possessions : 
Odysseus  is  said  to  have  had  as  much  as  any  other 
twenty  men ;  twelve  herds  of  kine,  twelve  flocks 
of  sheep,  twelve  droves  of  swine,  twenty-three 
flocks  of  goats,  and,  in  addition,  other  nine  hundred 
and  sixty  swine.3  A  herd  of  three  thousand  horses 
is  mentioned  as  great  riches ;  and  fifty  herds  of 
kine,  fifty  flocks  of  sheep,  fifty  droves  of  swine, 
fifty  flocks  of  goats,  and  one  hundred  and  fifty 
horses  (all  females  with  colts)  was  considered  rich 
booty.  Fanciful  pictures,  no  doubt,  but  they  give 
an  idea  of  what  Homeric  wealth  was.  Kings  were 
regularly  reputed  wealthy;  their  riches,  no  doubt, 
aided  in  their  elevation.4 

There  appears  to  have  been  no  extreme  misery 
or  slavery  in  consequence  of  debt,  in  Homer's  time ; 
there  seem  to  have  been  no  particular  objects  for 

1  iii,  348-350?  xiv,  513-514  ;  xviii,  1  ff. 

3  X,  315;  i,  165;  iv,  72-74;  XXIII,  549-550;  XIV,  122-124: 
xv,  405;  XVIII,  288-292;  XXIV,  317-318;  iv,  72-74;  vi,  300  ff. 
3  xiv,  96-104. 
*  XX,  220-223  ;  XI,  672  ff  ;  XVI,  596  ;  XXIV,  536,  etc. 


INDUSTRIAL   ORGANISATION  99 

which  a  man  needed  to  incur  debt,  except  for  his 
daily  bread.  Possibly  the  misery  of  the  free  labour- 
ers was  due  to  JfflB|e  such  cause,  but  there  is  really 
no  warrant  for^BFerting  this  view.  "Debt"  was 
confined  to  lack  of  reparation  for  a  raid.1  In  the 
case  of  the  Pylians  and  Eleans  this  is  illustrated ; 
when  the  return  raid  to  collect  the  "debt"  had 
been  successfully  made  by  the  Pylians,  heralds 
called  together  all  those  "  to  whom  debt  was  owing 
in  Elis,"  and  a  division  was  made,  the  king  having 
first  choice  from  the  captured  property.  The  king's 
part  in  this  debt  lay  in  the  retention  of  four  fine 
horses  flh  chariots,  formerly  sent  by  him  to  the 
games  ^WElis.  Sometimes  the  injured  community 
would  send  an  ambassador  to  demand  reparation.2 
It  is  probable  that  other  debts  were  owed  to  men 
by  members  of  a  near  tribe  with  whom  they  had 
had  business  relations3  and  that  such  debts  might 
run  on  for  long  periods.  Adultery-fines  were  due  to 
Hephaestus  from  Ares ;  and  he  would  not  loose  the 
culprit  till  Poseidon  promised  surety.  There  was, 
therefore,  no  idea  of  contract,  nor  of  a  law  which 
would  enforce  the  fines  or  the  given  word,  for 
Hephaestus  expected  Ares  to  elude  payment,  if  he 
let  him  go.4 

Lastly,   there    are   found    instances    of    extreme 
\  venality  in  Homer's  people.     Promises  of  gifts  and 

1  xxi,  16-21  ;  cf.  force  of  "ra." 

2  XI,  682-688;  696  ff;  xxi,  20-21. 

8  iii,  366-368 ;  cf.  iv,^e£5-637  ;  xiv,  102  ff. 
4  viii,  351  ff. 


100  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

favour  caused  Pandarus  to  break-  the  truce,  and 
Antimachus  to  urge  the  death  of  Menelaus  when 
the  latter  came  to  Ilion  as  aj^aassador.  These 
examples  are  Trojan,  we  nofll  A  seer  was 
charged  with  expecting  favour  for  prophesying  in  a 
certain  way ;  a  woman  even  betrayed  her  husband 
for  gold.1 

It  is  not  easy  to  indicate  in  one  phrase  the 
attitude  of  a  people;  but  in  the  study  of  Homeric 
Greece  the  conviction  is  almost  forced  upon  one 
that  the  age  is  one  of  heginnings  in  the  appropria- 
tion of  gifts  from  an  older  culture-world.  The 
lower  culture-stage  is  alert  and  eager  ^Bhreceive, 
the  older  civilisation  as  alert  and  eagiMPo  give ; 
for  in  that  giving  lies  its  own  reward,  influence 
is  exerted  with  exceeding  strength  upon  the  eco- 
nomic basis  of  society ;  but  not  as  yet  do  marked 
changes  in  the  secondary  social  forms  betray  this 
fundamental  modification. 

i  IV,  97  ff;  XI,  124;  139-141 ;  ii,  186;  xi,  326-327. 


CHAPTEE   III 
RELIGIOUS  IDEAS   AND   USAGES 

THE  religion  of  Homer  was  by  no  means  a 
primitive  one.  It  had  already  divested  itself 
of  the  grosser  forms  of  early  religious  belief  and  had 
developed  a  character  of  its  own.  What  has  been 
said  of  the  Phoenician  religion  might  be  said  of  it : 
accessions  to  it,  however  numerous,  had  not  yet 
materially  modified  its  ground-plan.  None  the  less, 
it  presents  a  phase  of  belief,  of  "the  struggle  for 
self-maintenance  carried  beyond  the  grave,"  1  which 
is  not  qualitatively  different  from  other  early  re- 
ligious systems.  It  affords  another  example  to 
prove  that  all  religion  arose  from  like  beliefs  with 
respect  to  death,  spirits,  and  the  continued  existence 
of  the  "  soul." 

Death  and  death-like  states  meant  to  Homer 
what  they  have  ever  popularly  meant :  the  absence 
of  the  soul  from  the  body.  In  death  the  soul  was 
absent  forever;  in  fainting  it  was  breathed  forth, 
later  to  return.  Such  explanations  of  death-like 
states  were  not  figurative,  nor  were  they  rational- 
ised. In  regard  to  sleep  and  dreams  alone  had 
rationalisation    succeeded    in   unseating    primitive 

1  Sumner,  U.  L. 


102  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

ideas ;  the  soul  apparently  was  not  regarded  as 
absent  from  the  body  in  sleep,  and  its  actions  and 
feelings  in  dreams  were  considered  unreal.1 

From  this  universal  idea  of  the  soul's  absence 
there  has  always  arisen  a  body  of  notions  and  be* 
liefs.  In  Homer  a  number  of  these  deductions 
remain  clearly  marked;  others  appear  as  survivals 
or  are  all  but  rationalised  away.  In  tracing  these 
religious  beliefs  and  their  evolution  into  social 
theories,  especially  in  so  developed  and  receptive  a 
society  as  that  of  Homer,  a  number  of  contradictions 
and  inconsistencies  will  appear;  logical  deduction 
took  now  one  road,  now  another.  These  very 
divergences,  however,  were  a  necessary  part  of  the 
thought-evolution  of  the  age,  and  demand  no  recon- 
ciliation.  The  main  line  of  development  is  clearly 
enough  marked ;  inconsistencies  often  serve  to  com- 
plete the  picture  in  its  details. 

The  prevalent  Homeric  terms  for  "soul"  are 
words  derived  from  "breath"  or  '"'wind."2  This 
soul  was  connected  with  various  parts  of  the  body  ;> 
the  diaphragm,  heart,  head,  pupil  of  the  eye,  and  the 
blood.3  It  was  regarded  as  the  energising  princi- 
ple of  the  body ;  yet  the  body  was  that  with  which 
the  personality  of  the  man  was  identified.  The 
body  was  the  autos ;  the  only  other  term  for  the 

i  IX,  408-409  ;  V,  697  ff ;  XIV,  436-439 ;  XV,  1 0 ;  XXII,  467  ff ; 
xxiv,  348-349 ;  xix,  547  ;  xx,  90. 

2  I,  3 ;  24 ;  cf .  XX,  440 ;  xii,  400 ;  408  ;  L.  &  S.  Lex. 

■  I,  103;  608;  1,44;  VIII,  281;  XI,  55;  XVII,  242 ;  XVIII, 
82;  Friedreich,  140-143. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        103 

living  body  in  Homer  is  a  circumlocution.1  Hence 
it  seems  that  the  soul  was  a  separate  being  for  the 
continued  possession  of  which  a  man  would  strive. 
The  soul  and  the  man  were  a  sort  of  dual  person- 
ality;  when  the  hero  in  distress  poetically  "ad- 
dressed his  noble  soul,"  it  was  a  survival  of  this 
dualism.  Thus  there  was  a  close  bond  between  a 
man  and  his  soul ;  a  strong  man  had  a  strong  soul, 
and  a  weak  coward  a  contemptible  one.2 

The  soul  had  various  ways  of  leaving  the  body. 
In  fainting  it  was  breathed  out,  and  returned," 
apparently  the  same  way,  when  the  afflicted  person 
recovered.3  In  death,  the  soul  departed  regularly 
by  the  mouth,  sometimes>il^a  flow  of  blood;  at 
other  times  it  followed  the  spear  as  it  was  drawn 
from  the  wound.4  In  all  cases,  it  "  flies  "  in  haste 
through  the  air,  the  souls  of  great  heroes  departing 
with  mourning.  "  And  from  his  limbs  his  soul  was 
gone  in  flight  to  the  home  of  Hades,  mourning  its 
fate,  leaving  behind  both  manliness  and  youth."5 
When  the  soul  had  once  "passed  the  bulwark  of 
the  teeth,"  it  returned  no  more  to  vivify  the  body. 
It  became  an  eidolon,  incorporeal,  but  like  in  other 
respects  to  the  man  as  he  had  been  in  life,  a  being 

1  Seymour,  H.  L.  &  V.,  23  ;  demas  means  rather  the  "  figure  " 
or  "  build  "  of  the  body. 

2  Cf.  i,  5 ;  XVII,  442  ;  xx,  18;  cf.  I,  3;  Seymour's  note  to  II, 
212. 

8  V,  696  ff  ;  XV,  252  ;  XXII,  467  ff. 

4  IX,  408-409  ;  XX,  403  ;  XIV,  518-519  ;  XVI,  504-505. 

6  XIII,  671-672;  XVI,  606-607;  XXIII,  880;  cf.  xi,  57-58; 
XVI,  856-857  ;  XXII,  362-363. 


104  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

which,  if  the  dead  body  were  treated  carelessly, 
might  return  to  earth.1 

If  the  body  was  properly  cared  for,  the  soul 
departed  at  once  for  the  spirit-world.  Existence  in 
this  spirit-world  was  conceived  in  terms  of  existence 
during  life  ('*  other-worldliness  ") ;  for  instance,  the 
hunter  Orion  in  the  spirit-world  chased  the  souls 
of  the  animals  which  he  had  himself  slain  in  life.2 
In  the  after-life  all  things  were  mere  eidola  of  what 
existed  on  earth.  The  dead  were  fitted  out  with 
an  extensive  equipment,  such  as  they  used  in  life, 
and  sometimes  with  companions  of  the  journey. 
They  were  supposed  to  cherish  the  same  human 
feelings  as  living  men ;  desire  for  property,  love  and 
pride,  jealousy,  pain,  etc. ; 3  they  even  bore  their 
old  wounds,  and  by  action  and  appearance  indicated 
their  former  station  in  life.  Spirits  which  in  life 
were  together  were  not  separated  in  death;  kings 
and  judges  ruled  and  judged  their  people  beneath 
the  earth.4 

And  yet  these  souls  were  mere  eidola,  flying 
beneath  the  earth  with  thin  cries,  huddling  and 
clinging  together  like  bats  dislodged  from  the  roof 
of  a  cave,  disappearing  like  smoke,  "  like  a  shadow 
or  a  dream,"  "  without  mind,"  and  forgetful  of  all.6 

1  XXIII,  65-69  ;  107. 

2  xi,  572-575. 

»  XXII,  509-513;  XXIII,  50-51-   177;   XXIV,    592-595;  xi, 
540;  544  ;  554  ;  xxiv,  21  ;  199  ff. 
*  xi,  387-388  ;  568-571  ;  491. 
6  XXIII,  100-104;  xxiv,  1-10;  xi,  206-208;  xi,  218-222. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        105 

It  has  been  said  that  the  soul  was  closely  con- 
nected with  the  blood.  The  soul  was  even  able  to 
regain  memory  and  a  semblance  of  being  by  drink- 
ing the  blood  of  a  sheep.  Thus,  Odysseus  allowed 
one  after  another  of  the  departed  souls  to  approach 
and  drink  blood,  and  then  the  soul  conversed  with 
him  and  knew  him,  and  was  for  a  time  as  was  the 
man  or  the  woman  in  life.1 

Such  were  in  general  the  ideas  of  Homer  regard- 
ing the  soul.  Something  has  already  been  indicated 
as  to  the  spirit-world.  This  land  of  the  departed 
was  in  the  West,  its  entrance  obscured  by  dark- 
ness, clouds,  and  eternal  night.  ^One  sailed  through 
the  Ocean-stream  to  reach  it ;  the  way  lay  through 
the  land  of  dreams,  and  at  the  entrance  of  the  dis- 
mal country  were  groves  of  poplars  and  willows. 
Four  streams  with  ominous  names,  the  Acheron, 
Pyriphlegethon,  Cocytus,  and  Styx,  their  waters  or 
fires  impassable  for  spirits,  intervened  to  restrain 
the  exit.2  Besides  these,  the  dog  (as  yet  unnamed) 
discharged  the  function  of  his  race  as  spirit-queller 
and  restrainer.3  The  house  of  Hades  was  subter- 
ranean;  a  dismal,  cheerless  abode,  hateful  alike  to 
gods  and  men.  There,  in  an  asphodel  meadow,  the 
souls  wandered  about,  most  of  them  undergoing  no 
real  suffering.  Yet  the  thought  of  Hades  and  his 
home  was  fraught  with  great  fear  to  the  Homeric 

1  xi,  147  ff. 

2  x,  508-5?5;  xi,  13-22;  cf.  Lippert,  II,  241  ff ;  244. 
•  VIII,  368;  xi,  623-626;  cf.  Lippert,  I,  490  ff. 


106  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

Greek  ;  no  honours  after  death  could  compensate  for 
the  loss  of  life.  "  Of  death  do  not  speak  lightly  . . . 
I  would  prefer  to  serve  a  poor  master  as  a  field- 
labourer  .  .  .  rather  than  to  rule  over  all  the  departed 
dead."  It  was  a  deed  of  greatest  daring  to  approach 
this  dread  abode  and  was  seldom  accomplished  by 
a  living  man.1 

There  were,  however,  seemingly  happier  person- 
ages in  the  lower  world ;  Minos,  the  judge,  wielded 
a  power  like  that  of  life,  and  to  Teiresias,  the  seer, 
was  granted  to  retain  his  mind  and  to  continue  to 
prophesy.  A  strange  case  is  that  of  Castor  and 
Polydeuces;  they  gained  great  honour  from  Zeus, 
and  it  was  granted  to  them  to  live  every  other  day, 
an  honour  "  equal  to  that  of  the  gods."  Still  more 
strange  is  the  dual  personality  of  Heracles;  "And 
after  this  one  I  saw  the  mighty  Heracles  —  his 
shade;  but  he  himself  was  with  the  immortal 
gods."  2  All  these  were  somewhat  better  off  than 
the  ordinary  souls;  others  were  more  unfortunate. 
Sisyphus,  Tityus,  and  Tantalus  suffered  "  strong 
agonies."  Another  possible  case  of  suffering  is 
where  the  dead,  fleeing  like  birds,  were  a  mark  for 
the  archer  Heracles.3  Apart  from  all  this  region  of 
misery  and  semi-existence  lay  the  plain  of  Elysium. 
Here  life  was  easy  and  pleasant;  entrance  to  this 

1  XX,  61-65;  cf.  VI,  19  ;  282-284  ;  411 ;  XX,  294  ;  XXII,  482  ; 
xxiv,  204;  xi,  539;  xxiv,  13;  x,  496-499;  566-568;  570;  xx,  81  ; 
xi,  488-491 ;  VIII,  368  ff ;  xi,  156  ;  475-476;  623-626. 

2  x,  492-495;  xi,  90-150;  301-304;  569-571  ;  601-602. 
8  xi,  576-600;  605  ff. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES        107 

paradise,  however,  was  far  from  being  a  matter  of 
good  life  and  morals.  Menelaus  gained  his  title  to 
it  by  being  the  husband  of  Helen,  the  daughter  of 
Zeus.  "  There  is  the  easiest  life  for  men ;  there 
is  no  snow,  nor  much  winter,  nor  ever  rain,  but 
Ocean  always  sends  up  the  shrilly  breathing  gusts 
of  Zephyrus  to  cool  mankind."  1 

The  spirit-world  of  Homer,  while  constructed 
upon  the  universal  basis  of  "  other-worldliness,"  yet 
differs  from  many  another  semi-civilised  conception 
in  that  it  introduces  the  elements  of  degeneracy, 
gloom,  and  terror.  Such  conceptions  often  belong 
to  a  higher  culture-stage ;  and  from  the  little  that 
has  been  said  above  concerning  the  Chaldseans'  and 
Egyptians'  ideas  of  the  spirit-world,  we  see  how 
strongly  marked  such  characteristics  were  in  their 
conceptions.  No  doubt  Greek  ideas  regarding  spirits 
and  their  treatment  were  modified  by  influences 
from  the  East ;  the  secret  of  the  growing  strength 
of  this  influence  was  that  it  was  exerted  upon  the 
simplest  and  primary  forms  of  belief,  that  it  worked 
from  beneath  upward  in  the  logical  way.  Of  course 
Homer's  spirit- world  was  a  Greek  one  and  "none 
but  Hellenic  and  naturalised  shades"  were  to  be 
found  there.2 

The  process  of  evolution  from  spirit  to  god  is 
indicated  here  and  there,  in  such  stories  as  those 
of  Castor   and   Polydeuces   and   of  Heracles.     Im- 

1  iv,  561  ff  ;  565-568. 

8  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Em.  Age  I,  241. 


108  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

possible  as  it  is  to  trace  such  processes  after  cen- 
turies of  myth-complication  and  modification,  still 
in  the  nature  of  the  Greek  gods  were  many  marks 
of  their  origin  from  mankind.  The  Homeric  gods 
were  men  of  a  larger  being  and  power.  They  had 
human  form,  they  had  weight,  could  fall,  could  be 
bound  with  chains,  could  feel  intense  physical  pain, 
and  they  could  be,  if  not  mortally,  certainly  very 
painfully  wounded,  even  by  men.1  They  possessed 
this  physical  distinction  from  men,  that  they  had 
no  blood,  but  a  divine  fluid,  ichor,  in  their  veins  ; 
and  that,  though  they  united  with  men  in  devouring 
sacrifices,  still  they  regularly  ate  no  flesh  and  grain, 
nor  drank  wine.  They  ate  and  drank  immortality. 
Further,  they  possessed  all  the  emotions  and  passions 
of  men,  on  a  grander  scale ;  they  feared,  hated,  and 
envied,  and  were  jealous,  vain,  and  lustful  beyond  the 
measure  of  the  man.2  There  were  many  children 
born  of  unions  of  gods  with  mortals.3  Though  in 
general  described  as  "  blessed,"  "  happy,"  still  the 
gods  were  a  prey  to  sorrow  and  pain  of  mind,  and  to 
disappointment ;  they  were  baffled  and  insulted  and 
felt  the  emotions  natural  to  that  state.  The  society 
of  the  gods  was  made  unpleasant  by  mutual  quarrels 
and  bickerings ;  they  were  not  omniscient  or  omnip- 
otent, and   their  state  was  not  stable.     The  entire 

1  I,  399  ff ;  592-594  ;  V,  315  ff ;  383-400 ;  835-837;  VIII,  404  ff ; 
XXI,  406-417. 

2  V,   339-342;   1,406;   V,   406-415;    VII,   446 ff;    VIII,  2ff; 
XIV,  313  ff;  XXIV,  605-608. 

8  xi,  235  ff  passim ;  etc. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES        109 

ground-work  of  the  Homeric  system  was  anthropo- 
morphic; gods  were  different  from  men  chiefly  in 
degree.  The  power  of  the  gods  for  good  or  ill  was, 
of  course,  far  greater  than  that  of  man.  Their 
physical  force  was  thousands  of  times  greater  than 
his,  and  in  addition,  they  generally  possessed  vari- 
ous attributes  of  spirits ;  quickness  of  movement, 
power  of  existence  in  various  elements,  etc.  Be- 
sides all  this,  they  were  vested  with  magical  powers,1 
and  were  rulers  over  natural  phenomena ;  in  short, 
they  were  Power  in  the  superlative. 

The  spirits  of  the  dead  and  the  gods  were  practi- 
cally the  only  supernatural  elements  in  Homer's 
time  to  which  the  people  paid  much  attention. 
And  since  the  dead,  once  disposed  of,  returned  no 
more,  interest  was  turned  almost  exclusively  to  the 
gods.  Very  few  traces  of  other  spirits  occur  in 
Homer.  Of  course  there  was  a  multitude  of 
nymphs,  river-gods,  etc.,  but  these  came  really 
under  the  head  of  lesser  gods  and  were  worshipped. 
When  the  word  daimon  occurs,  it  is  generally 
used  of  a  particular  god,  or  in  a  case  where  it  is 
uncertain  just  what  god  is  in  question.  Possibly 
all  cases  could  be  brought  under  these  heads;2 
none  the  less,  the  practices  of  the  people  implied 
a  present  or  former  belief  in  the  existence  of  certain 
unknown  and  evil  powers,  aside  from  the  gods. 

1  Cf.  V,  860;  XIV,  148;  I,  47;  221;  532;  VI,  136;  for 
magic,  see  pp.  172-175  below  ;  XIV,  347-351. 

2  iii,  27 ;  166 ;  iv,  275  ;  xv,  261 ;  ix,  381 ;  x,  64 ;  xii,  169 ;  but 
cf.  IX,  600-601 ;  v,  396 ;  xi,  587 ;  xix,  200-201 ;  xxiv,  149. 


110  HOMERIC   SOCIETY 

In  general,  the  gods  were  not  ill-disposed 
toward  men  ;  if  they  were  angry,  there  was  some 
reason,  however  trivial,  and  propitiation  was  gener- 
ally possible.  Hades  alone  was  inexorable,  but 
his  range  of  active  power  lay  in  the  beyond. 
Inferior  gods  and  nymphs  were  good-natured,1 
and  localised  monsters,  like  Scylla  and  Charybdis 
do  not  come  into  the  discussion.  There  were, 
however,  unnamed  evil  daimons,  mentioned  in 
connections  where  it  is  hardly  possible  that  a 
god  could  have  been  meant,2  and  there  were 
certain  survivals  and  practices  that  witnessed  a 
desire  to  be  rid  of  some  interfering  supernatural 
agency. 

Such  were  the  ideas  of  Homer  on  supernatural 
beings ;  these  ideas  worked  out  into  a  daimonology 
and  cult  which,  in  their  turn,  throw  back  light 
upon  their  origins. 

The  superior  powers  ruled  all  life ;  nothing  was 
foreign  to  their  influence,  for  good  or  ill.  If  a 
person  acted  strangely,  he  was  spoken  of,  more 
or  less  figuratively,  as  possessed  of  a  god  or  spirit. 
So  Dionysus  was  "  mad."  3 

Everything  was  due  to  agency  ;  fear  and  bravery, 
storm  and  calm ;  and  especially  the  sudden  and 
inexplicable,    like     rumour   or     crowd-sentiments. 


1  Like  the  Norse  "  skytsaander ; "  Lehmann,  I,  67  ff ;  100. 
3  IX,  600-601  ;  v,  396;  xi,  587  ;  xix,  200-201  ;  xxiv,  149. 
8  XVII,  210-212;  XXI,  5;  xviii,  406;    xix,  71;    xxiii,  166; 
174 ;  264  ;  VI,  131  f£ ;  cf.  XXII,  460. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES         111 

From  the  gods  were  death  and  pestilence.1  In  the 
case  of  men's  destinies,  the  agency  of  the  gods  was 
plainly  marked;  after  rehearsing  the  woes  due  to 
the  quarrel  of  Agamemnon  and  Achilles,  in  which 
"the  will  of  Zeus  was  accomplished,"  the  narrator 
asks:  "Who  then  of  the  gods  incited  these  two 
to  contend  ? "  2  It  must  have  been  one  of  the 
gods  who  did  this;  any  other  hypothesis  was 
excluded  at  once  Again,  ill-fortune  was  at  once 
assigned  to  the  agency  of  a  god,  even  if  one  could 
remember  no  transgression ;  "  I  must  have  sinned 
against  the  immortals  who  hold  the  broad  heaven. 
But  do  thou  tell  me  —  the  gods  know  all  things 
—  which  one  of  the  immortals  delays  me  and  binds 
me  from  my  path."3 

This  implicit  belief  in  agency  was  rationalised 
a  little  by  Homer.  The  evils  ©f  life  had  been  so 
often  blamed  to  the  gods  that  this  had  become  a  good 
way  of  putting  aside  responsibility.  The  fact  that 
Homer  saw  the  unreasonableness  of  this  practice 
only  confirms  the  evidence  as  to  its  frequency.  He 
makes  Zeus  say,  "  Ah  me,  how  now  do  mortals 
take  the  gods  to  task  !  For  they  say  that  their 
evils  are  from  us  ;  while  they  themselves,  because 
of  their  own  acts  of  blind  folly,  suffer  woes  beyond 


i  V,  185;  VI,  108-109;  XIII,  222-225;  812;  xii,  169;  xix, 
200-201  ;  i,  282-283  ;  II,  451-454  ;  XI,  544  ;  VI,  205  ;  428  ;  XIX. 
59 ;  I,  10. 

2  I,  8;  cf.  the  force  of  "ar." 

«  iv,  377-380.  4  i,  32-34 ;  cf.  XIX,  86-89. 


112         '        .      HOMERIC  SOCIETY 


CULT 

If,  then,  the  gods  and  spirits  were  the  sources 
of  all  fortune,  good  and  ill,  it  became  the  whole 
philosophy  of  life  to  stand  well  with  the  gods  and 
gain  their  favour,  and,  if  possible,  to  banish  irrec- 
oncilable powers  from  one's  sphere.1  Thus  arose 
the  two  main  .forms  of  cult :  the  banishing  and 
compelling,  and*  the  prgpitiative.  '    , 

The  first  form  is  represented  chiefly  by  survivals 
in  Homer.  The  banning  effect  of  fire  and  water 
was  Well  understood,  as  is  proved  by  the  location 
of  rivers  of  fire  and  water  as  barriers  of  the.  spirit- 
world.  Entrance  was  impossible  to  Hades's  home 
until  one  had  had  his  "  share  of  the  fire ; "  and  fire 
was  used  with  sulphur  in  purification.2  Water  was 
in  more  common  use  for  the  .latter  object,  however  ; 
it  was  regularly  poured  over  the  hands  preceding 
a  religious  function,  or  a  bath  was  taken  for  purifi- 
cation.3 Altars  were  sometimes  located  near  the 
water.4  Some  devices  for  frightening  away  evil 
spirits,  very  common  in  the  East,  may  have  been 
imitated  in  the  use  of  tassels  and  fringe.  The  iEgis 
with  its  hundred  tassels  was  shaken  to  produce 
a  terrorising  effect.  The  sick  were  not  abandoned 
through  fear   of   the   evil   spirits  which   possessed 


1  Sumner,  U.  L. 

2  XXIII,  69  ff ;  x,  513-514  ;  xi,  74  ;  xxiii,  50-51. 

8  III,  270 ;  i,  136-137  ;  iv,  49  ff ;  I,  313-314  ;  xvii,  48  ff. 
*  II,  305-308. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES        113 

them,  though  Philoctetes.was  left  behind,  suffering 
from  the  bite  of  a  serpent.1 

The  souls  of  the  dead  were  not  encouraged  to 
linger  among  the  living;  the  utmost  haste  was 
made  to  speed  them  off  to  the  spirit-world,  though 
this  was  partly  for  their  own  sakes,  as  will  appear 
later.  An  unburied  friend  or  companion  was 
a  shame  and  a  cause  of  the  gods'  wrath  to  one.2 
Mourning-customs  show  a  few  common  survivals  of 
ghost-avoidance,  in  the  disfigurement  of  the  body 
by  wounds  or  dust ;  black  is  also  mentioned  in 
mourning.3  Silence  in  the  presence  of  a  god  was 
enjoined,  and  no  one  would  gaze  at  a  divinity ;  in 
sacrificing  to  the  dead,  Odysseus  turned  his  head 
away.4 

Of  operative  magic  —  exorcism  —  there  is  not  a 
word  in  Homer ;  that  was  to  come  later  from  the 
•Chaldseans.  But  the  name-fetich,  as  a  compelling 
agency,  was  not  unknown.5  Ajax,  before  an  ordeal 
duel,  bade  the  Achaeans  pray  "  in  silence,  to  your- 
selves, lest  the  Trojans  hear  "  the  formula,  doubtless, 
or  the  name,  and  so  get  the  god  away.  He  then 
corrected  himself  in  a  feeling  of  confidence,  on  the 
ground  that  there  was  nothing  to  fear.     Tne  same 

1  II,  448;  XIV,  181  ;  XV,  318-322;  XVI,  803;  II,  722. 

2  VII,  409-410;  iii,  284-285;  xi,  52-54;  XXII,  386;  xi,  73. 

8  11,700;  XI,  393;  XVIII,  23  ff;  XIX,  284-285;  XXII,  33 ; 
77;  406;  414;  XXIV,  161-166;  711;  iv,  541  ;  x,  499 ;  xxiv, 
315-317  ;  XXIV,  93-94. 

4  v,  346-350;    xvi,  179  ;   xix,  42-43  ;  x,  427-428. 

6  Lehmann,  I,  67-77 ;   84 ;   cf .  100. 
8 


114  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

regard  for  the  "  word  "  as  a  compelling  or  summon- 
ing power  is  shown  in  the  injunction  to  avoid  un- 
lucky words  in  a  religious  ceremony;  also  it  is 
remotely  indicated  in  the  epithet  "  unnamable  "  or 
"  of  evil  name,"  applied  to  horrible  things.1 

The  above  instances  scarcely  apply  to  the  gods, 
as  Homer  knew  them,  and  are  largely  cult-survi- 
vals. But  there  was  one  very  living  danger  from 
the  gods  that  must  be  avoided  as  far  as  possible,  — 
the  gods  would  not  brook  exceeding  prosperity.2 
Their  natures  were  jealous,  and  they  would  allow  to 
man  but  a  moderate  share  of  good  fortune.  Because 
Achilles's  lot  was  so  noble,  his  life  was  short  and 
bitter ;  while  Odysseus,  having  endured  many  suf- 
ferings, was  to  end  a  long  life  in  peace  and  happi- 
ness.3 Possibly  because  bards  were  so  fortunate  in 
being  gifted  with  song,  their  sight  was  sometimes 
removed ;  after  great  prosperity,  Bellerophon  went 
mad.4  Worst  ^of  all,  however,  was  undue  boasting 
and  a  desire  to  minimise  divine  power.5  Ajax 
boasted  that  he  had  escaped  drowning  in  spite  of 
the  gods ;  Poseidon,  angry  at  these  words,  split  the 
rock  "  upon  which  Ajax  was  sitting  when  he  became 
greatly  infatuated,"  and  Ajax  was  drowned  in  the 

1  VII,  193-196  ;   cf.  Leaf,  155 ;  IX,  71  ;  VI,  255  ;  xix,  260;  571. 

2  iv,  181 ;  xx,  66-78  ;   xxiii,  211-212. 

8  IX,  410ff;  cf.  Gladstone,  lira.  &  Hm.  Age,  II,  375;  xxiii, 
281-284. 

4  II,  599  ff;  viii,  63-64;  VI,  200  ff. 

6  II,  599  ff  ;  XXIV,  605-608  ;  viii,  227-228 ;  565-569  ;  ix,  523  ft; 
xiii,  129  ff. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES         115 

sea.  "Short-lived  are  those  who  fight  with  the 
immortal  gods." ' 

Therefore  men  were  ever  on  their  guard  to  avoid 
transgression  in  this  respect  and  to  turn  aside  all 
"  envy."  2  One  should  receive  the  gifts  of  the  gods 
in  silence ;  compliments  were  turned  off  with  some 
deprecatory  remark ;  gradually  there  arose  a  sort 
of  doctrine  of  excess,  and,  later,  the  conception  of 
"  nemesis,"  which,  however,  is  not  so  designated  in 
Homer.3 

The  great  bulk  of  Homeric  cult-operations  lay  in 
propitiatory  rites.  The  Homeric  gods  were  in  gen- 
eral well-disposed,  if  treated  generously,  and  the 
line  of  least  resistance  was  propitiation  rather  than 
theurgy.4 

It  will  have  been  noticed  in  the  above  that  the 
great  object  of  the  defensive  operations  was  to 
avoid  evil.  The  evils  of  life  are  many,  even  to 
Homer ;  to  him  man  was  the  most  miserable  of  all 
beings,  "  as  many  as  breathe  and  creep  upon  the 
earth."  "For  thus  the  gods  have  fated  it  to 
wretched  mortals,  to  live  in  woe."5  In  Homer's 
time,  as  in  all  times,  man's  absorJaing- thought  was  to 
lighten  his  load  or  shift  it.  His  idea  was,  indeed,  to 
gain  luck,  but  still  more  was  it  to  avoid  ill-fortune. 

1  iv,  502  ff;  V,  38#;   403;   406-415;   cf.  434-442. 

2  v,  212-213;    215-218. 

3  xviii,  141-142  ;  X,  243  ff  ;  xv,  69-70;  394  ff  ;  xvi,  202-203  ; 
"  nemesis  "  means  "censure  "  or  "anger"  in  Homer. 

4  Lehmann,  I,  67-69. 

5  xviii,130-131  (cf.  XVII,  443-447)  ;  XXIV,  525-526. 


116  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

As  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  good  luck  was  forgot- 
ten in  ill,  the  evil  was  exaggerated  over  the  good,1 
and  it  was  in  times  of  trouble  that  men  turned  to 
the  gods.  While  all  went  smoothly,  the  Greek  was 
sufficient  unto  himself;  when  it  was  necessary  to 
avoid  an  evil,  then  he  sought  the  protection  of  the 
higher  powers.  Thus,  cult-operations  were  mostly 
in  avoidance  of  evil. 

The  propitiatory  cult  was,  in  its  simplest  form, 
mere  self-defence.  The  gods  and  ghosts,  in  conse- 
quence of  anthropomorphic  natures,  had  wants  and 
needs  as  multitudinous  and  diverse  as  those  of  men. 
These  needs  had  the  sanction  of  the  higher  power, 
fear  of  which,  to  the  Greek,  was  a  great  part  of 
life ;  "  Easy  it  is  for  the  gods,  who  hold  the  broad 
heaven,  either  to  exalt  a  mortal  man,  or  to  do  him 
ill."2  The  desires  of  the  dead  and  the  gods  had 
the  force  of  rights ;  and  the  supply  of  these  needs 
by  the  living  had  the  force  of  duties,  because  rights 
and  duties  regularly  distribute  themselves  accord- 
ing to  power  and  weakness  respectively.3  The  first 
sacrifices  to  the  wants  of  the  higher  powers  wert 
therefore  without  return,  —  purely  defensive  oper- 
ations.    Such  were  the  sacrifices  to  the  dead. 

To  gain  a  clear  idea  concerning  the  duties  of  the 
living  to  the  newly  dead,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
pass   in   review  several  further   notions   regarding 

i  Cf.  XIV,  70  ff. 

*  xvi,  211-212;  IV,31ff;  V,  178;  XX,  56;  XXIV,  170. 
3  Cf.  Guinplowicz,  Soc,  pt.  Ill,  art.  2;  12;  pp.  110-120;  153- 
154;  Starcke,  Samv.,  171-173. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        111 

the  disembodied  soul.  The  comfort  of  the  soul 
in  the  future  life  depended  largely  upon  the  dis- 
position made  of  the  body  after  death.  Lack  of 
funeral  ceremonies  was  a  terrible  misfortune ;  thus, 
death  by  drowning  was  a  pitiful  and  inglorious 
one,  as  was  death  far  away  from  friends,  for  in 
either  case,  the  soul  entered  the  next  life  without 
possessions  of  any  kind.  It  would  have  been  better 
for  Odysseus  to  have  died  at  Troy,  for  there  he  would 
have  been  magnificently  buried.1  There  was  also 
an  idea  that  the  soul  which  had  not  gained  "  a 
share  of  the  fire "  could  not  pass  the  river  and 
associate  with  the  shades  of  those  gone  before.2 

Worse  than  all  this,  however,  was  the  misfortune 
of  having  the  body  devoured  by  dogs  and  birds  of 
prey,  or  defiled  by  insects  or  worms.3  Just  what 
effect  this  was  supposed  to  have  on  the  soul  is 
not  clear,  but  it  was  terribly  feared,  and  a  threat 
of  the  dogs  would  bring  a  dying  warrior  to  earnest 
entreaty  for  mercy.  Decay  or  defilement  of  the 
body  was  in  one  case  prevented  by  divine  means ; 
by  the  use  of  ambrosia  which  was  introduced  into 
the  nostrils.  Some  actual  process  of  which  this  is 
the  idealisation,  together  with  the  practice  of  fill- 

1  XXI,  281  ;  320-323;  i,  234-241. 

2  "  Cremation  was  not  practised  in  Egypt,  Phamicia,  Palestine, 
Asia  Minor,  or  Cyprus,  save  to  a  small  extent  by  Greeks,  or  under 
Greek  influence,  and  that  in  late  times."  Ridgeway,  I,  484;  cf. 
ch.  VII. 

8  XVII,  126-127;  XXII,  74-76;  509;  XXIV,  409;  iii,  258- 
261  ;  cf.  Lippert,  I,  113. 


118  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

ing  wounds  of  the  dead  with  ointment,  might  have 
been  a  clumsy  imitation  of  Egyptian  embalming 
processes.1  Along  with  mutilations  of  dead  bodies 
by  dogs,  etc.,  went  maltreatment  by  men;  the 
object  of  such  maltreatment  must  have  been  to 
render  pain  to  the  soul  in  some  way,  as  it  obvi- 
ously proceeded  from  motives  of  revenge.  No 
Greek  stood  beside  the  corpse  of  Hector  without 
wounding  it;  every  one  present  had  debts  of  re- 
venge to  pay  him.2 

The  above  ideas  explain  the  terrible  fights  over 
the  dead  bodies  of  warriors ; 3  one  side  trying  to 
rescue  the  body  for  the  soul's  sake,  the  other  to 
wound  the  soul  in  the  fate  of  the  body,  or  to  hold 
the  body  for  a  large  ransom  such  as  the  supersti- 
tion of  the  time  would  easily  grant.  Beyond  pro- 
tection of  a  dead  comrade's  body,  the  living  also  owed 
him  vengeance ;  when  possible,  there  was  provided  a 
"  follower  "  in  the  person  of  his  slayer  or  some  other 
enemy.  Also  the  notions  of  "  otherworldliness " 
made  a  provision  of  property,  etc.,  imperative. 

The  most  detailed  account  of  discharge  of  duties 
toward  the  dead  is  found  in  the  story  of  the  death 
and  burial  of  Patroclus.  How  exceedingly  impor- 
tant all  these  duties  to  the  dead  were,  is  amply 
indicated  by  the  fact  that  Homer  motives  the 
reconciliation    of   Achilles   by  his    feeling   for   the 

i  XVIII,  349-353  ;  XIX,  39. 
2  XXII,  371-375;  XXIV,  420-421. 

8  IV,  467  ff ;  V,  298  ;  561  ff  ;  610  ff ;  XI,  145  ff ;  XIII,  203  ff  ; 
XX,  394 ;  499. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES        119 

dead  Patroclus.  Throughout  the  story  there  are 
to  he  found  new  instances  of  otherworldliness,  pro- 
pitiation, etc.,  illustrating  statements  made  above. 
The  proceedings  are  described  so  fully  and  in  such 
sequence  that  recapitulation  of  detail  seems  unne- 
cessary; attention  may  be  called,  however,  to  sev- 
eral salient  features  of  the  story.1  The  rescue  of  the 
body  from  Hector's  intended  insults,  the  mourning 
of  Achilles,  his  desire  for  vengeance  and  his  vow  il- 
lustrate the  attitude  of  friend  and  enemy  toward  the 
dead.  The  feeling  that  vengeance  must  be  limited 
was  evidently  growing  up  in  the  mores,  for  Achilles 
was  blamed  for  dishonouring  "  the  dull  earth." 2 
That  vengeance  was  directed  not  only  against  the 
perpetrator  of  the  murder,  but  upon  his  family 
and  countrymen  as  well,  is  characteristic  of  the 
Homeric  phase  of  social  development. 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  dead  man  was  laid 
with  his  feet  toward  the  door,  and  that  the  soul 
was  provided  with  all  things  such  as  the  dead 
were  supposed  to  need  "  beneath  the  shadowy 
West."  The  appearance  of  the  soul  (like  even  in 
clothing  to  the  dead  man)  to  Achilles  as  he  lay 
on  the  sea-beach  is  noteworthy,  for  it  came  to 
speed  the  funeral  and  cremation,  that  it  might 
cross  the  river  and  mingle  with  those  souls  which 
as  yet  held  the  newcomer  afar.3 

1  XVII  (fight  over  body)  ;  XVIII,  1-242 ;  XIX,  1-39  ;  276- 
339;  XXII,  261-272;  330-404;  XXIII;  XXIV,  1-54;  576-595. 

2  XXIV,  53-54.  8  XXIII,  50-51 ;  65-67. 


120  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

Sacrifices  to  the  recently  dead  took  here  the  form 
of  renunciation,  exuvial  sacrifice  (of  the  hair),1  and 
offerings  of  horses,  "  table-dogs,"  and  Trojan  pris- 
oners ;  the  animals  and  men  forming  a  "  grave- fol- 
lowing "  which  should  serve  the  dead  man  in  the  life 
to  come.  The  human  sacrifice  Homer  calls  an 
"evil  deed."2  The  pouring  of  wine  about  the 
pyre  and  the  calling  of  the  dead  are  other  ex- 
pressions of  the  Greek  theory  concerning  spirits 
and  their  personality.  After  the  pyre  had  been 
extinguished  (with  wine),  the  bones  gathered  in 
fat,  and  the  games  played,  the  soul  was  still  sup- 
posed to  feel  and  know  the  things  of  earthly  life  ; 
last  of  all  we  hear  Achilles  cry :  "  Continue  not  thy 
anger,  0  Patroclus,  if  thou  dost  know  in  Hades's 
home  that  I  have  loosed  Hector ;  I  received  much 
ransom  and  thou  shalt  have  thy  share."3  This 
funeral  was  of  the  military  type,  with  the  usual 
features  of  the  classical  funeral,  —  procession,  "  hate- 
ful" funeral-feast,  etc., —  well  carried  out;  it  took 
only  a  few  days,  however,  in  accord  with  war-custom. 
That  of  Hector  took  eleven  days,  and  was  supple- 
mented with  dirges  of  praise,  and  choruses.4  The 
most  magnificent  funeral  was  that  of  Achilles, 
which  occupied,  mourning  and  all,  over  seven- 
teen days  and  nights.  These  latter  funerals  ap- 
proach   the   type    of    burial   under    conditions    of 

1  Achilles  placed  his  shorn  locks  in  the  hand  of  Patroclus 
(XXIII,  132-141). 

2  XXIII,  176. 

8  XXIV,  592-595.  4  XIX,  225-229 ;  XXIV,  656-804 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        121 

peace.  Splendid  tombs  were  erected ;  the  narrator 
adds  (to  Achilles) :  "  Thou  hast  come  upon  many  a 
burial  of  brave  men,  but  never  hast  thou  seen  such 
funeral  games  at  the  death  of  any  king  as  those 
at  thine  own  funeral."  1 

These  examples  of  funeral  rites  are  so  complete 
in  detail  that  they  leave  little  additional  to  sup- 
ply from  other  cases.  Fights  over  the  slain  and 
the  stripping  of  armour  were  regular  practices ; 
mutilation  of  the  dead  was  not  uncommon.  The 
same  great  fear  of  being  eaten  by  the  dogs  appears 
again  and  again  ;  calling  upon  the  soul,  mutilations 
of  the  mourners'  bodies  and  hair,  and  disfigurement 
with  dust  and  dirt  occur  regularly  in  mourning.2 
"  Urave-f  olio  wings  "  are  mentioned  elsewhere,  and 
the  prevalence  of  vengeance-debts  for  fallen  com- 
rades implies  such  a  custom.  Sometimes  agree- 
ments were  made  to  return  an  enemy's  body.3 
Cutting  of  hair,  giving  of  gifts,  making  of  funeral 
shrouds,  placing  of  stones  upon  the  graves, — 
all  these  different  usages  of  mourning  occur  in 
approximately  similar  forms.4  Allied  to  regular 
burial  were  the  cenotaph  and  gifts  given  to  the 
unburied  dead ; 6  the  latter,  in  the  case  of  Hector, 

1  xxiv,  36-92;  quotation,  87-92. 

*  XXII,  33  ;  77  ;  406 ;  414  ;  XXIV,  161-166  ;  iv,  194-198  ;  539  ; 
541  ;  716-719;  ix,  64-66. 

3  VII,  76  ff. 

4  XVI,  456-457;  XXII,  509-513;  ii,  97-102;  iv,  195-198;  v, 
311;  xi,  31;  74;  77-78. 

6  XXII,  509-513;  i,  289  ff;  iv,  584. 


122  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

would  "  do  him  no  good."  Evidently  the  dead  man 
was  conceived  of  as  taking  all  such  things  with 
him. 

Few  failures  in  duty  to  the  dead  are  registered. 
Odysseus  left  the  body  of  a  companion  behind,  un- 
mourned  and  unburied,  as  he  hastened  on  his 
ship-journey  to  the  spirit- world.  When  he  arrived 
there,  the  first  shade  he  saw  was  that  of  his 
neglected  follower,  Elpenor.  As  Odysseus  asked 
him  how  he  died,  it  is  hardly  supposable  that 
neglect  was  intentional,  especially  as  we  have  cases 
which  indicate  that  no  business  was  so  important 
as  to  justify  neglect  of  the  dead.1  Elpenor  in  this 
case  begged  Odysseus  by  all  that  was  sacred  to  him 
not  to  leave  his  body  unburied,  lest  he  become  a 
cause  of  the  gods'  wrath  to  Odysseus.  He  urged 
Odysseus  to  bury  him  with  his  armour  and  build  a 
tomb  upon  the  seashore ;  in  place  of  a  tombstone 
there  was  to  be  planted  the  oar  which  the  dead  man 
had  swung  in  life.  All  this  was  scrupulously  done, 
and  a  stone  raised  besides  2 

The  Greeks  of  Homer's  time  were  upon  that 
happy  stage  of  religious  belief  where,  by  adroit 
treatment,  the  ghost  was  forever  propitiated;  ghost- 
fear  is  scarcely  more  than  hinted  at.  It  was  only 
by  exception  that  a  funeral  was  accorded  to  an 
enemy;  his  soul  was  not  feared  enough  to  make 
precautions  necessary.  Orestes,  as  a  son  who  had 
fulfilled  a   terrible   duty,  made   a  funeral   for   his 

1  iii,  284-285.  »  xi,  51  ff ;  xii,  9-15. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES         123 

mother  and  iEgisthus  ;  but  Menelaus  would  not 
have  done  this.1  We  must,  therefore,  regard  the 
mortuary  rites  in  their  complexity  as  a  remnant  or 
survival  of  the  superstition  of  a  former  age.  There 
was  still  enough  force  in  the  ideas  whence  these 
rites  sprung  to  make  the  survivors  hasten  to  speed 
the  departing  soul  to  its  rest,  and  to  enable  them 
to  shoulder  cheerfully  the  great  burdens  coincident 
with  so  great  a  funeral  waste.  Though  these  rites 
were  not  exactly  the  projection  into  social  forms 
of  the  ideas  of  Homer's  own  time,  still  they  present 
a  wholly  consistent  picture,  and,  except  in  the 
minor  details,  such  as  those  which  may  refer  to  em- 
balming, drying  the  body,2  etc. ,  little  effect  of  foreign 
influence  was  present. 

The  sacrifice  to  the  dead  in  funerals  is,  of  course, 
merely  defensive  in  original  intention.  Still  in 
many  particulars  it  passes  over  into  the  bargain- 
sacrifice,  which  in  Homer  is  a  common  form  in  use 
with  respect  to  the  gods.  Such  a  bargain-sacrifice 
was  the  one  promised  by  Odysseus  to  the  dead  in 
return  for  immunity  from  harm  and  for  actual 
aid.3 

The  influence  of  the  dead  on  life  was  not  great ; 
after  the  funeral  it  was  virtually  nil.  Therefore 
sacrifices  to  the  dead  were  offered,  in  general,  only 
on  the  one  occasion,  that  of  the  funeral.  With  the 
i^ods,  however,  there  entered  an  ever  active  element 

1  iii,  309-310;  cf.  256-261. 

2  XVI,  456-457.  8  x,  517  ff ;  xi,  25  ff. 


124  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

of  the  supernatural,  which  penetrated  all  human 
life  and  demanded  constant  care  and  attention. 
Men's  affairs  were  decided,  not  according  to  any 
ideas  of  abstract  justice,  but  by  a  "balance  of 
power"  among  the  gods.1  To  render  the  struggle 
for  existence  less  hard,  "  all  men  had  need  of  the 
gods."  2  This  need  of  assistance  lay  rather  in  avoid- 
ance of  evil  than  in  gaining  of  good ;  it  was  insur- 
ance and  took  several  diverse  forms. 

First  of  all,  the  gods  seem  to  have  levied  a  sort 
of  neutrality-toll  upon  all  proceedings  of  men.  To 
receive  sacrifices  was  a  right  of  theirs,  apart  from 
any  aid  they  might  bestow ;  it  was  in  payment  for 
not  opposing  or  injuring  men,3  —  for  "keeping 
hands  off."  For  all  the  gods  were  ready  to  injure 
men  unless  their  "  rights  "  were  properly  acknowl- 
edged. Because  men  thought  the  power  of  the 
gods  so  great  and  fearful,  propitiation  of  them 
became  a  necessity  if  one  were  to  live  with  some 
immunity  from  pain  and  loss;  and  thus  the  gods 
gained  the  right  of  having  their  needs  supplied  by 
men.  They  must  have  food,  drink,  clothing,  etc., 
and,  since  they  were  not  by  nature  ill-disposed 
as  were  the  Chaldsean  daimons,  a  man  who  sacri: 
ficed  regularly  and  generously  to  them  might  be 
fairly  sure  of  comfort  and  success.4  On  the  other 
hand,  neglect   of   the  gods,  or  infringement   upon 

i  Cf.  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  II,  386. 

2  iii,  47-48. 

8  XXIV,  70;  iv,  351  ff,  etc.  *  i,  65-67. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES         125 

their  prerogatives,  constituted  Sin,  whose  punish- 
ment was  death  or  heavy  misfortune.  In  this  kind 
of  sacrifice  the  defensive  intention  is  clear ;  it  may 
be  added  that  generous  fulfilment  of  the  ritual 
which  insured  the  rights  of  the  gods,  rendered  a 
man  "justified;"  under  such  conditions  he  became 
a  sort  of  favourite  with  the  gods,  who  would  in 
most  cases  protect  him  from  evil,  and,  in  many 
cases,  actively  aid  him.1 

In  connection  with  regular  offerings  came  repara- 
tion-sacrifices, in  consequence'  of  sin.  Sin  was  the 
violation  of  any  one  of  the  multitudinous  rights 
of  the  gods ;  failure  in  sacrifice  and  the  like,  or 
transgression  against  any  of  the  norms  of  life 
which  had  received  the  sanction  of  the  superior 
powers.  The  oncoming  of  a  sudden  and  great 
calamity  enabled  one  to  deduce  at  once  the  fact 
of  sin;2  all  evil  was  due  to  sin.  One  who  had 
transgressed  was  no  longer  justified  with  the  gods, 
and  was  exposed  to  endless  misfortune ;  the  only 
course  to  pursue  was  to  find  out  at  once  which 
god  was  angry,  and  then  to  make  all  efforts  to 
appease  that  wrath  and  to  justify  one's  self.  Sin 
was  a  matter  entirely  of  form ;  no  repentance  was 
required.  The  gods  were  not  inexorable,  and  rich 
reparation  and  praise  procured  instant  justification. 

1  XIII,  6;  XX,  298-299;  XXIII,  205-207;  XXIV,  66-70; 
vi,  119-121 ;  xiv,  420-421 ;  433  ;  I,  216-218  ;  V,  23-24;  xiii,  300- 
301  ;  xvi,  260-265  ;   xxiii,  335-336. 

2  I,  59-67  ;   iv,  377-380. 


126  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

The  sin  of  one  man,  especially  of  an  important  man 
might  descend  upon  a  whole  community  and  make 
it  unclean,  in  which  case  reparation  was  made  by 
the  community.1 

Such  sacrifices  had  a  more  or  less  general  char- 
acter ;  there  were  other  offerings  having  to  do  with 
particular  times  and  occasions.  These  sacrifices 
were  in  the  nature  of  contracts,  actual  or  implied, 
and  in  which  one  or  both  parties  might  be  bound. 
In  a  regular  bargain,  the  sacrifice-payment  to  the 
gods  was  conditional  upon  their  actual  fulfilment 
of  some  request ;  in  the  other  variety,  the  offering 
was  made  to  the  gods  in  the  hope  that  they  would 
grant  the  request,2  though  they  might  take  the 
offering  and  still  add  to  the  former  calamity.  Thus 
all  the  risk  came  upon  the  man ;  for  him  there 
was  no  assurance  at  all  after  his  property  had  been 
consumed  upon  the  altar. 

None  the  less,  this  latter,  less  sure  form  was  the 
commoner  way  of  insuring  one's  life  against  evil. 
To  catalogue  the  occasions  for  such  sacrifice  would 
be  to  name  all  the  undertakings  of  life.  Dangerous 
trips  across  the  sea,  raids,  battles,  conclusions  of 
truces,3  — all  these  greater  operations  were  pre- 
ceded by  sacrifice.  Also  the  more  commonplace 
practices  and  customs  were  ever  sanctioned  by  reli- 
gious  acts:    meals   were  generally   sacrifices,   and 

i  I,  9ff;  iv,  351  ff. 

2  VI,  305-310,  etc.;  11,412-420. 

3  IX,  357;  iii,  159-160;  xv,  222-223;  III,  268  ff;  XI,  706- 
707;  727-729. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES         127 

sacrifices  meals ; 1  drinking  was  likewise  insepa- 
rable from  libation. 

In  all  these  offerings  there  was  an  implied  bind- 
ing of  the  god ;  if  he  did  not  protect  the  sacrificer, 
he  was  promptly  blamed  and  even  abused.2  From 
the  words  of  the  gods  themselves,  it  was  only  with 
regret  that  they  failed  a  "  just "  man.  "  He  was  the 
dearest  to  the  gods  of  mortals  who  are  in  Ilion"; 
Zeus  says  of  Hector:  "dearest  to  me  also,  since 
he  never  failed  in  acceptable  gifts.  For  never  did 
my  altar  lack  a  proper  feast,  neither  libation  nor 
savour."  And  of  Odysseus  likewise :  "  How  then 
could  I  be  unmindful  of  the  godlike  Odysseus,  who 
exceeds  men  in  wisdom,  and  who  surpasses  in 
the  sacrifices  which  he  offers  to  the  immortals."3 

In  the  real  bargain,  however,  precautions  were 
taken  to  assure  one's  self  against  useless  loss ;  the 
principle  of  contract  was  in  its  infancy.4  Harvest- 
sacrifices  and  the  like  were  probably  of  this  kind, 
pointing  rather  to  the  year  to  come  than  to  the 
past  year;  the  offerings  of  the  first  fruits  indicate 
the  same  purpose.6  Undertakings  begun  without 
sacrifice  or  promise  of  sacrifice  were  open  to  all 
the  displeasure  of  the  gods ;  and  to  secure  a  return 
of   favour,  it  was  necessary  to  begin  again  at  the 

1  IX,  219-220;  ii,  56-57;   xiv,  28;  74;   250-251  ;  xx,  390-391. 

2  III,  365  ;  xiii,  417  ;  xx,  201-202. 

«  XXIV,  66-70;   i,  65-67  ;  cf.  XXII,  169-170;  i,  67  ff. 
4  IV,   101-103;    XV,  372-377;  XXIII,  862-879;   cf.   XXIV, 
306 ff;  iii,  159;  ix,  551  ;  xxi,  265. 

&  IX,  534  ff;   cf.  XVIII,  550ff;    cf.  Lippert,  II,  315  ff. 


128  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

point  of  omission  and  perform  the  rites  as  they 
should  have  been  performed.1  A  strange  kind 
of  bargain-sacrifice  was  where  Odysseus's  men  pro- 
posed to  kill  the  cattle  of  Hyperion,  sacrifice  them 
to  him,  incidentally  feasting  themselves,  and  atone 
for  it  all  by  erecting  a  temple  to  the  god  on  their 
return  home.2  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  terms 
were  not  accepted. 

This  insurance,  therefore,  was  the  chief  and  really 
the  only  object  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  cult-rites. 
In  no  cases  are  there  clear  indications  of  thanks- 
giving for  favours  accorded  without  the  asking.  The 
whole  relation  is  a  sort  of  debit  and  credit  account, 
where  satisfaction  is  given  for  value  received.  Yet 
there  is  a  rationalisation  upon  all  this  in  the  con- 
cept of  Fate,  under  its  various  forms.  Fate  was  the 
"  portion  "  assigned  to  man  ;  for  example,  men  were 
"  long  ago  fated  to  die." 3  Fate  was  both  superior 
and  inferior  to  the  gods.  "  If  we  ask  how  .  .  .  Zeus 
himself  is  bound  by  Fate,  we  come  only  upon  a 
rough  form  of  the  general  problem  of  free-will  and 
determinism,  such  as  certainly  would  have  been 
unintelligible  in  an  age  which  had  not  yet  thought 
out  even  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect."  4  What- 
ever Fate  was,  however,  it  was  inexorable ;  but  the 
gods,  though  beings  of  exceeding  power,  could  be 
won  over.  Therefore  the  ground-plan  of  the  cult 
was  to  insure  one's  self  against  the  adverse  side  of 

1  iv,  351-352;   472-480;   582-586.  s  XVI,  441. 

2  xii,  343-347.  4  Leaf,  162. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        129 

life's  element  of  chance,  by  propitiating  the  gods, 
even  at  endless  waste  and  expense. 

The  sacrifice  itself,  under  whatever  theory  it  was 
performed,  was  of  a  consistent  type.  Human  sacri- 
fice had  virtually  passed  away.  Beyond  the  one 
case  of  the  enraged  Achilles,1  all  other  evidence  is 
in  the  line  of  survivals  and  inference.  Exuvial  sac- 
rifice points  ever  to  a  former  custom  of  sacrificing 
the  whole  body.2  A  case  of  this  kind,  possessing  a 
certain  wider  interest,  is  where  Peleus  promised  to 
the  river  Spercheios  the  hair  of  his  son  on  that  son's 
return  from  Ilion  ;  as  Achilles  was  very  young  when 
he  left  his  country,  this  ceremony  probably  had 
something  to  do  with  assumption  of  societal  obliga- 
tions.3 Eelics  of  cannibalism  of  course  point  to  the 
same  fact  of  human  sacrifice.  This  custom  is  found 
in  actual  and  common  existence  only  in  the  ruder 
tribes  mentioned  by  Homer;  among  the  Greeks 
themselves  it  was  only  in  isolated  cases  of  extreme 
anger  toward  an  enemy  that  a  savage  desire  to  de- 
vour his  flesh  might  arise.4  This  is  the  extremity 
of  hatred,  and  implies  -an  ill  effect  to  the  soul  of  a 
person  if  a  part  of  his  body  was  eaten  ;  no  special 
part  of  the  body  except  the  liver  is  mentioned  in 
this  connection.5  The  bloodthirstiness  of  the  god 
Ares   sometimes    has   a   cannibalistic   tinge.      But 

i  XXIII,  175-176. 

2  X,  15-16  ;  cf.  Wilken,  Vk.,  317. 

3  XXIII,  144ff ;  cf.  Lippert,  II,  341  ff. 

*  IV,  35  ;  XXII,  346-347  ;  XXIV,  212-214. 

6  XXIV,  212  ;  cf.  XXI,  203  ;  Lippert,  1, 481-482 ;  II,  283  ff. 


130  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

among  the  Greeks,  as  Homer  knew  them,  the  prac- 
tice was  held  in  great  abhorrence,  and  direst  need 
did  not  reduce  them  to  so  shameful  an  act.  The 
whole  force  of  the  cult  was  thrown  against  it,  and  it 
is  thus  relegated  to  a  somewhat  remote  past.  Only 
an  occasional  sacrifice  of  the  first-born  of  animals 
recalls  redemption  and  substitution.1 

The  dog,  though  intimately  connected  with  the 
spirit-world,  was  not  sacrificed  to  the  gods;  but 
horses  were  sunk  in  the  eddies  of  the  Scamander  as 
an  offering  to  that  river.2  All  other  sacrifice  was 
confined  to  sheep,  goats,  swine,  oxen,  and  cows,  wine, 
honey,  grains,  and  fruits,  and  incense ;  of  course 
clothing  and  the  like  were  offered.  Grain,  honey, 
etc.,  were  not  sacrificed  alone,  as  meat  was ;  they 
were  always  supplementary  to  the  latter.  It  seems, 
however,  that  there  were  such  things  as  incense- 
sacrifices,  where  no  victim  was  offered.  That  par- 
ticular animals  were  sacrificed  to  particular  gods  is 
sometimes  maintained.8 

The  choice  of  victims  was  not  sharply  defined ; 
the  chief  condition  was  that  they  should  be  "  un- 
blemished." 4  Swine  were  used  in  taking  oaths  by 
the  older  gods  or  by  those  which  had  to  do  with  the 
lower  world,  and  were  sometimes  sacrificed  by  the 
poor.     Something  the  same  may  be  said  of  sheep,5 

1  V,  289  ;  XXIII,  1 76  ;  ix,  478-479  ;  first-born  lambs  ;  IV,  102 ; 
XXIII,  863-865  ;  cf.  Lippert,  II,  315  ff. 

2  XXI,  130-132. 

8  VI,  269-270 ;  IX,  499  ;  Buchholz,  III,  pt.  2,  300. 

*  I,  66;  etc.  6  XIX,  197  ff ;  xiv,  414ff;  III,  103-104. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES         131 

though  their  use  cannot  be  subjected  to  any  restric- 
tions. Usually  dark-coloured  victims  were  offered  to 
the  underground  deities  or  to  the  dead,  but  at  the 
funeral  of  Patroclus  we  find  white  animals  slain. 
Usually  also  male  animals  were  sacrificed  to  male 
gods  and  female  animals  to  female  divinities.  In 
one  case  a  barren  cow  was  promised  to  the  dead.1 

Oxen  and  cows  formed  the  commonest  sacrifice ; 
the  word  "hecatomb"  (one  hundred  bulls,  or  cows) 
was  used  of  sheep  as  well  as  kine.  In  the  fact  that 
the  oxen  and  cows  offered  were  so  often  "  ungoaded  " 
or  "  unbroken,"  we  probably  find  the  familiar  cus- 
tom of  preserving  the  work-animals  from  the  altar. 
The  prevalence  of  this  custom  is  supported  by  the 
lack  of  ass  and  horse  sacrifice,  and  by  several  direct 
statements.2 

Wine  was  used  freely  in  all  sacrifices ;  in  case  of 
its  lack,  water  took  its  place.  Of  the  grains,  barley 
alone  was  offered,  and  in  the  lack  of  all  grain,  ten- 
der oak-leaves  were  substituted.3  Salt  is  not  men- 
tioned in  regular  sacrifice,  and  its  use  did  not  form 
an  essential  part  in  any  of  the  cult-operations  ;  but 
honey,  the  original  condiment,  occurs,  especially  in 
sacrifices  to  the  dead  and  in  funeral  ceremonies ; 4 
milk  was  not  offered.     Gold  was  sometimes  fastened 

1  x,  572;  xi,  23;  32-33;  XXIII,  30 ;  111,103-104;  X,  292- 
294;  XI,  727-729;  XX,  404-405;  x,  522. 

2  IV,  102;  VI,  94;  X,  292-294  ;  Lippert,  I,  536  ff.  "Uncas- 
trated"  victims  are  mentioned  (XXIII,  147). 

8  xii,  357-363. 

4  But  cf.  IX,  214 ;  xi,  26-33;  XXIII,  170. 


132  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

to  the  horns  of  a  victim,  and,  in  rare  cases,  raiment 
was  offered.1  The  cult  seems  very  clear  in  regard 
to  barley  and  honey  being  "  old "  foods,  and  one  is 
inclined  to  place  the  smaller  quadrupeds  in  the 
same  category.  All  these  smaller  animals  were 
freely  eaten  in  Homer's  time,  as  well  as  the  larger ; 
there  was  no  distinction  such  as  existed  in  Egypt.2 

The  ceremony  of  sacrifice  is  consistent  through- 
out Homer.  One  ceremony  is  a  model  of  another, 
with  few  and  unimportant  variations.  The  Greek 
army's  atonement-sacrifice  for  Agamemnon's  sin  is 
as  typical  as  any.  Here  the  sacred  hecatomb  was 
arranged  about  the  altar  in  order.  The  participants 
of  the  sacrifice  then  washed  their  hands  and  took 
up  grains  of  barley,  and  the  priest,  in  whose  person 
the  god  had  been  injured,  prayed  loudly,  with  up- 
lifted hands,  beseeching  the  divinity  to  remove  pes- 
tilence from  the  army.  After  the  prayer,  the  barley 
grains  were  "  cast  forward,"  the  throats  of  the 
victims  were  cut,  and  they  were  flayed.  The  thigh- 
bones 3  were  cut  out  and  wrapped  in  a  double  layer 
of  fat,  and  upon  this  bundle  were  laid  small  pieces 
of  raw  meat.  These  thigh-pieces  the  old  priest 
burned  upon  billets  of  wood,  pouring  wine  upon 
them  ever  and  anon,  while  young  men  held  the 
pieces  with  five-tined  forks.4  When  the  pieces 
were  burned  away,  the  participants  merely  tasted 

1  X,  292-294  ;  iii,  437-438  ;  VI,  302-303  ;  iii,  274. 

2  Lippert,  I,  545-546. 

8  Or,  perhaps,  "  thigh-pieces,"  including  soine  flesh. 
4  Cf.  Friedreich,  443. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND  USAGES        133 

the  vitals,  and  then  began  a  feast  upon  the  remainder 
of  the  offering.  They  cut  up  the  meat  and  roasted 
it  carefully  on  spits,  and  were  provided  with  abun- 
dant wine.  All  day  they  feasted  and  propitiated 
the  god  (Apollo),  singing  a  paean  of  praise  which 
delighted  him.  In  full  good- will  he  sent  them  off 
with  a  favourable  breeze  the  next  morning.1  The 
speedy  reconciliation  of  the  god  erstwhile  so  en- 
raged, is  striking. 

Further  illustrations  might  supplement  this  one 
in  various  details.  The  sacrifice  performed  by 
Nestor  in  Pylos  is  a  distinctly  patriarchal  affair ; 
the  old  warrior  and  his  sous  carry  out  the  ceremony 
with  no  external  aid,  and  the  sacrifice  presents 
several  details  not  present  in  the  preceding,  such  as 
catching  blood  in  a  sacrificial  dish,  cutting  hairs 
from  the  victim's  head  and  burning  them  preceding 
the  real  sacrifice,  and  the  eating  of  the  "outer  flesh  " 
(probably  as  distinguished  from  the  vitals).2 

From  these  examples  may  be  derived  the  general 
form  of  Homeric  sacrifice.  As  we  shall  see,  the 
latter  example  is  the  more  typical  in  one  respect, 
—  in  the  absence  of  the  professional  priest.  In 
the  first  illustration,  the  holy  man  was  at  his  own 
shrine,  and  at  such  places  only  do  we  find  regular 
priests.  The  ceremonial  cleansing,  the  use  of  the 
barley,  the  prayer  before  the  gift,  are  all  regular. 
The  detail  of  cutting  out  the  thigh-pieces,  covering 
them  with  fat,  and  then  making  them  deceptively 

1  I,  447-479.  2  iii,  404-472. 


134  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

attractive  by  laying  pieces  of  meat  on  the  top,  looks 
very  much  like  a  stereotyped  attempt  to  avoid 
sacrificial  waste  and  to  deceive  the  gods,  a  de- 
vice very  common  throughout  the  world.1  Forks, 
we  notice,  were  used  as  cult-implements,  though 
they  are  not  met  with  in  the  ordinary  occupations 
of  life ;  they  may  have  been  a  specialty  of  religious 
invention  and  under  a  religious  tabu.  A  sur- 
vival appears  in  the  tasting,  i.  e.,  ceremonial  eating, 
of  the  vitals,  which  points  to  the  primitive  appetite 
for  blood.2  Further  noticeable  is  the  close  connec- 
tion between  sacrifice  and  eating;  the  sentiments 
of  the  sacrificer  were  not  solely  those  of  awe  and  re- 
nunciation. Cutting  off  the  hair  from  the  victim's 
head  is,  with  the  burning  of  the  thigh-pieces,  sym- 
bolic of  the  sacrifice  of  the  whole  animal;  the 
Homeric  Greeks  had  learned  to  save  the  most  and 
best  of  the  victim  for  themselves.  To  this  sacrifice 
the  honoured  god  came  ;  he  was  present  in  the 
midst,  albeit  unseen.  Sacrifices  were  sometimes  con- 
cluded by  casting  the  tongues  of  the  victims  into 
the  flames  and  by  libation.3 

Thus  the  ceremony  of  sacrifice  was  a  quite  simple 
one ;  variations  were  of  detail  and  trifling.  A  few 
more  instances  may  be  presented  which  will  throw 
light  upon  Homeric  sacrifice  from  several  sides.  A 
case  is  mentioned  where  a  swine  was  slain  for  a 

1  Sumner,  U.  L.  —  Instances  with  ref.  in  Letourneau,  Prop., 
87;  320. 

2  Lippert,  II,  286.  8  iii,  332-333  ;  338-341. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES         135 

meal.  But  the  slayer  "  did  not  forget  the  immortals, 
for  he  had  a  right  mind."  He  cut  hairs  from  the 
swine's  head,  cast  them  into  the  fire  and  prayed, 
then  killed  the  animal,  cut  small  pieces  of  flesh 
from  all  its  limbs,  "  through  the  rich  fat,"  sprinkled 
these  pieces  with  barley- meal,  and  cast  them  into 
the  fire.  The  meat  he  divided  into  three  shares, 
two  for  himself  and  his  guest,  and  one  for  the 
nymphs  and  Hermes.  After  this  came  more  sacri- 
fice of  meat,  and  libations.  It  is  not  hard  to  see 
how  the  man  in  question  was  "  right-minded ; "  how 
little  sacrifice  differed  from  mere  eating  is  clear 
from  this  and  many  other  examples.1 

We  find  also  that  a  man  had  to  be  impartial  in 
his  sacrifices.  CEneus  omitted  Artemis  when  he 
made  offerings  to  the  rest  of  the  gods,  and  she  sent 
a  wild  boar  to  lay  waste  his  rich  orchards  and  vine- 
yards ;  in  the  hunt  for  this  boar  a  cumulation  of  woe 
arose  from  the  anger  of  the  offended  goddess,  which 
led  to  a  destructive  war.  This  all  happened  in  con- 
sequence of  neglect,  due  to  forgetfulness  or  careless- 
ness, which  was  a  great  error  of  judgment.2 

It  is  noticeable  that  only  exceptionally  do  women 
appear  at  sacrifices ;  if  they  were  there,  they  were  of 
no  account  in  the  proceedings.  It  is  therefore  ex- 
ceptional to  find  women  in  Ilion  discharging  the 
function  of  a  public  prayer  to  Athena;  they  were 
even   directed   by  a  priestess.     They  proceeded  to 

1  xiv,  420-448 ;  cf.  xiv,  250-251 ;  xix,  198. 

2  IX,  533-549. 


136  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

a  temple  and  laid  a  costly  robe  "  upon  the  knees  " 
of  the  goddess,  requesting  aid,  and  promising  twelve 
sleek,  ungoaded  kine  in  event  of  such  aid  being 
granted.  Being  placed  upon  the  knees  of  Athena, 
the  robe  was  evidently  not  burned.  In  this  case  the 
deity  refused  the  request.1 

Thank-offerings  are  very  seldom  found,  if  at  all. 
Examples  suggested  can  be  more  consistently  ex- 
plained as  the  fulfilments  of  previous  vows,  spoken 
or  implied.  Such  a  sacrifice  was  that  made  by  the 
Achaeans  after  the  virtual  victory  of  Ajax  over 
Hector;  and  a  similar  one  is  where  the  Trojans 
looked  forward  to  giving  offerings  for  freedom 
and  peace,  if  the  Greeks  should  depart.2  In  this 
very  wish  they  virtually  promised  a  payment  to 
the  gods. 

A  peculiar  instance  of  sacrifice  is  that  made  by  JEgis- 
thus  after  he  had  killed  Agamemnon  and  married 
his  wife ;  he  sacrificed  many  animals  at  the  altars, 
and  hung  up  much  raiment  and  gold  in  the  sacred 
places,  because  he  had  accomplished  a  "great  work" 
which  he  had  never  hoped  to  effect.  These  offerings, 
however,  as  he  had  been  warned  by  the  gods  not  to  pur- 
sue the  above-mentioned  crimes,  are  to  be  taken  rather 
as  a  buying-off  of  punishment  for  disobedience.  In 
this  case  it  was  entirely  ineffective.3  The  instance 
illustrates  how  the  gods  became  sanctions  for  human 

1  VI,  269-277;  297-311. 

2  VII,  314  ff;  VI,  526-529;  cf.  XI,  706  ff;  iii,  179. 
8  iii,  273-275 ;  i,  37-39. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        137 

morals,  and  were  personally  affronted  by  transgres- 
sions against  norms  which  custom  had  established. 

A  further  sacrifice,  connected  with  a  symbolic 
ceremony  of  propitiation^wa^Jiat  which  Odysseus 
made  on  his  escape  frwi^^^Tong  wanderings.  To 
appease  the  sea-god's  wrath,  he  was  to  take  an  oar 
and  proceed  inland  until  h§  came  to  those  men  who 
did  not  know  the  sea  or  ships,  and  used  no  salt  with 
their  food.  The  sign  given  was  that  a  wayfarer 
whom  he  should  meet  would  mistake  the  oar  for  a 
winn owing-shovel.  Odysseus  was  then  to  fix  the 
oar  in  the  earth,  sacrifice  generously  to  Poseidon 
and  return  home,  there  to  sacrifice  to  all  the  gods  in 
turn.  When  this  was  done,  troubles  would  be  over, 
and  a  kindly  old  age,  followed  by  a  quiet  death  on 
land ,  amidst  a  happy  people,  would  succeed  to  all 
the  former  hardships.1 

The  ritual  in  all  these  examples  is  not  complicated; 
beyond  what  has  been  mentioned,  there  is  an  injunc- 
tion to  avoid  unlucky  words,  and  there  are  other 
ceremonies  of  purification :  for  example,  the  cleans- 
ing of  a  sacrificial  cup  with  sulphur  and  water,  hy 
Achilles.  In  general  the  cult-impleme-nts  were,  like 
the  ceremonies,  simple.  Possibly  the  forks  and 
blood-basins,  like  the  cup  just  mentioned,  were 
under  a  special  tabu.  But  the  sacrificer  did  not 
hesitate  to  use  his  weapons  in  sacrifice  and  special- 
ised cult-implements  were  few.  There  was  a  sacri- 
ficial knife  which  the  king  always  carried,  and  fillets 

1  xxiii,  267  ff. 


138  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

of  the  gods,  upon  a  staff,  may  have  figured  in  sacri- 
fice; thyrsi  are  mentioned  in  connection  with  the 
"mad"  Dionysus.  There  seems  to  have  been  no 
special  cult-metal  used  in  the  manufacture  of  sacri- 
ficial knives.1 

Besides  the  sacrifice  of  occasion  there  is  one  clear 
case  of  a  religious  festival,  and  possibly  others,2  but 
this  form  of  worship  was  exceptional. 

Of  course  in  funerals  and  sacrifices,  especially  in 
the  former,  the  waste  was  great.  So  it  was  in  liba- 
tions, as  we  shall  see.  It  is  clear  from  what  has 
been  said  that  the  Homeric  Greeks  were  an  intensely 
religious  people,  by  their  whole  philosophy  of  life 
committed  to  constant  service  of  the  supernatural 
powers  —  the  "  dead  hand. "  Obedience  to  the  gods 
marked  the  perfect  man ;  "  whoever  obeys  the  gods, 
to  him  they  harken."3  A  man  was  justified  accord- 
ing to  the  amount  of  his  contributions  to  the  desires 
of  the  gods  4  and,  even  allowing  a  liberal  discount  to 
the  high  colouring  of  the  poet,  and  realising  that 
cattle  were  at  that  time  possessed  in  great  num- 
bers, still  the  burden  of  the  cult  must  have  been  ex- 
ceedingly heavy.  A  case  is  mentioned  of  a  sacrifice 
of  eighty-one  oxen  at  a  time ;  sacrifices  succeeded 
each  other  closely  ;  sometimes  all  the  gods  had  to  be 
propitiated  in  order.     The  term  "  hecatomb,"  though 

1  IX,  171;  XVI,  228-229;  cf.  xi,  24;  III,  271-272;  I,  14-15; 
VI,  134  ;  III,  292  ;  XXIII,  30. 

2  xxi,  258  ff;  II,  550-551. 

8  I,  218;  cf.  V,  800  ff;  XXIV,  139-140. 
*  XXII,  169  ff;  XXIV,  66-70;  i,  65-67. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        139 

used  no  longer  by  Homer  in  its  original  signification, 
either  of  number  or  kind  of  animals,  points  to  great 
prodigality.1  Of  course,  giving  chiefly,  as  he  does, 
the  ideal  record  of  the  richer  classes,  Homer  could 
make  the  sacrifices  to  the  gods  lavish,  and  yet  they 
would  cause  no  visible  distress.  But  any  stage  of 
society  groans  under  the  load  of  cult-obligations  and 
suffers-  from  the  attendant  loss ;  and  the  lavish  - 
ness  of  the  Homeric  heroes,  even  though  it  was  not 
all  waste,  could  not  fail  to  have  its  weighty  conse- 
quences. How  civilisation  struggles  forward  under 
such  economic  loads  is  only  to  be  explained  by  the 
reflex  action  of  the  cult  itself.  The  burdens,  though 
grievously  heavy,  are  carried  by  the  body  rather  than 
by  the  mind.  The  mind  is  untroubled  by  the  strain  of 
doubts,  since  justification  is  a  matter  of  works.  The 
advantages  attained  are  worth  the  cost.  In  addition, 
the  very  burden  of  superstition  forces  a  higher  devel- 
opment of  thought,  which,  in  turn,  advances  culture. 
Libations  were  really  another  form  of  sacrifice, 
though  accompanied  with  little  ceremony.  When 
of  a  formal  character,  libation  was  preceded  by 
careful  purification  in  clear  water,  and  was  often 
performed  at  the  altar  of  Zeus  in  the  middle  of  the 
court.  Wine  was  the  regular  means  of  libation 
used,  though  honey,  sweet  wine,  and  water  were 
offered  to  the  dead,  along  with  barley.2    This  points 

1  iii,  5ff;   380-384;    430  ff;  IX,  534  ff;  xxiii,  279-281;  cf .  I, 
309  ff;  IV,  102;  etc. 

2  XXIV,  303-307  ;  xi,  27-28. 


140  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

again  to  these  as  "  old  "  forms  of  food  and  drink. 
Libations  were  often  informal,  and  the  connection 
between  libation  and  drinking  was  very  close ;  all 
libation  was  not  necessarily  drinking,  but  almost,  if 
not  quite  all,  drinking  appears  to  have  been  accom- 
panied by  libation.1  The  occasions  for  libation  were 
almost  as  diverse  as  those  for  sacrifice,  though  they 
were  generally  less  important.  Where  sacrifice 
could  not  well  be  offered,  on  shipboard,  for  instance, 
libation  was  its  substitute.2  Wine  was  poured  dur- 
ing dangerous  voyages,  at  the  departure  on  a  mis- 
sion, at  the  departure  of  a  friend,  for  the  safety  of  a 
friend,  at  the  breaking-up  of  a  company  of  guests, 
as  conclusion  of  regular  sacrifice,  on  the  arrival  of 
a  suppliant,  on  recalling  past  griefs,  etc.3  It  was 
sometimes  accompanied  with  a  blessing,  and  in  one 
case  a  special  cup  is  mentioned,  devoted  exclusively 
to  the  pouring  of  libations  to  Zeus.4 

Prayers  and  vows  were  much  the  same  thing ;  as 
the  word  for  prayer  indicates,  prayers  were  mostly 
vows.6  These  vows  were  then  followed  by  a  re- 
quest, and  thus  belong  really  to  the  machinery  of 
the  bargain-sacrifice.  Promises  of  sacrifice  were 
held  binding  by  the  gods,  who  might  conceive  great 

1  vii,  136-138;   183-184;  xiii,  55-56;  xviii,  419;  426-427. 

2  ii,  431-433. 

3  IX,  171-177;  656-657;  XXIV,  303-307;  xiii,  50-52;  57-62; 
xv,  149  ff;  IX,  712;  vii,  136-138;  XVI,  220  ft;  iii,  332-333; 
338-341  ;  390-395  ;  vii,  164-165;  viii,  87-89. 

4  xiii,  57-62  ;  XVI,  225-232. 

5  x,  526;  cf.  XXIII,  863-864;  872-873;  xi,  29-35;  xiii,  355- 
358;  xvii,  50-51. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES         141 

anger  if  they  were  not  performed.1  The  prayer  was 
often  preceded  by  ceremonial  hand-washing,  or  by  a 
bath  and  putting  on  of  clean  clothes.  It  was  gen- 
erally pronounced  aloud,  with  hands  reached  out  to 
the  god ;  indeed,  the  expression  "  lift  up  the  hands  " 
is  equivalent  to  "  pray."  Yet  prayer  might  be 
uttered  "  in  the  heart ; "  and  before  the  enemy  it 
was  the  part  of  caution  to  pray  in  silence.2  Prayer 
was  offered  in  need  to  the  god  likely  to  be  nearest  at 
hand.  It  was  a  good  time  to  pray  when  the  gods' 
attention  was  attracted  towards  one's  vicinity,  that 
is,  when  an  omen  occurred.3  It  is  remarked  by 
Gladstone4  that  almost  all  the  prayers  were  ad- 
dressed to  Zeus,  Athena,  or  Apollo,  and  none  to 
Aphrodite,  Ares,  Hermes,  Hephaestus,  De  meter,  or 
even  Hera.  One  prayer  we  find  offered,  conditional 
on  fate,  and  another,  asking  for  an  omen.6  Of 
course  there  were  blessings  and  curses :  blessings 
for  kindness,  at  parting,  etc.,  and  sometimes  condi- 
tional upon  the  granting  of  some  request;  curses 
for  various  crimes,  social  and  other.  The  parties 
cursed  evidently  expected  the  curses  to  be  ful- 
filled; such  fulfilment  was  the  special  duty  of 
the  Erinyes,  together  with  Hades  and  Persephone. 

>  I,  65  ff. 

2  ii,  261;  iv,  750-752;  xvii,  48 ff;  XV,  371;  ix,  527  f;  VI, 
257;  VII,  130;  XXIII,  769  ff;  cf.  xii,  333-337;  VII,  195- 
196. 

3  IX,  183;  xiii,  356-358;  xx,  112  ff. 
*  J.  M.,  281. 

6  ix,  527  ff ;   xx,  97-98. 


142  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

who  were  called,  apparently,  by  beating  upon  the 
earth.1 

Prayer  was,  with  few  exceptions,  egoistic,  and 
there  are  in  Homer  no  prayers  of  thanksgiving 
which  may  not  be  more  simply  interpreted  as  prom- 
ises or  the  like.  Naegelsbach  gives  several  stock 
formulas  for  prayer,  of  which  the  following  is  typi- 
cal :  (a)  Invocation  of  the  deity ;  (b)  Eeview  of 
reasons  establishing  a  claim  for  answer ;  (c)  Object 
of  the  request.2  It  is  not  hard  to  see  in  prayer,  as 
well  as  in  sacrifice,  the  entrance  of  the  element  of 
contract  in  dealing  with  the  higher  powers. 

Not  alone  were  food  and  drink  made  sacred  to 
the  gods.  One  case  has  been  cited  of  hanging  up 
presents  in  the  holy  place ;  we  also  find  trophies 
thus  disposed.  Hector  intended,  if  he  should  con- 
quer in  the  single  combat  with  Ajax,  to  hang  the 
latter's  armour  in  the  house  of  Apollo.  Probably 
his  object  in  wishing  to  cut  off  the  points  or  beaks 
of  the  Greek  ships  was  something  of  the  same  kind. 
Other  trophies  had  no  religious  significance  in 
Homer.3 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  "  temples " 4 

1  vi,  180-182;  viii,  408-413;  xiii,  44-46;  59-62;  xv,  341-342 ; 
xxiv,  402  ;  vii,  148-152  ;  331-333  ;  III,  298  ff ;  VI,  281-285  ;  XIII, 
232-233  ;  xvii,  475-476  ;    494-497  ;   IX,  454  ff ;  565-573. 

2  Buchholz,  III,  pt.  2,  257  ;  Naegelsbach,  art.  13  :  he  gives  as 
examples  I,  37  ff ;  X,  278  ff  ;  iv,  762  ff  ;  III,  298  ff;  XXIII,  770  ff; 
xvii,  354  ff ;  VI,  305 ff;   445  ff;  III,  351  ff. 

3  iii,  274  ;  VII,  83  ;  IX,  241  ;  VII,  146-149  ;  XIII,  260-265. 

4  Of  course  these  "  temples  "  were  for  the  most  part  very  simple 
affairs,  as  will  be  seen. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        143 

sacred  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  gods.  Preceding 
the  temple,  however,  came  the  altar,  and  the  earliest 
altar  was  the  hearth.  The  hearth  retained  its  char- 
acter as  a  religious  fetich  in  Homer's  time,  as  will 
appear  below ;  also  there  was  a  regular  altar  to 
Zeus  in  the  court  of  the  house.1  Many  altars  seem 
to  have  existed  where  there  were  as  yet  no  build- 
ings of  any  kind ;  there  were  altars  of  Zeus  on  the 
way  to  Ilion,  altars  were  built  for  rivers,  at  their 
sources,  and  were  located  in  the  place  of  assembly.2 
A  shrine  of  Apollo  existed  at  Delos,  where  grew 
the  wondrous  date-palm ;  and  an  altar  to  the 
nymphs  was  established  not  far  from  the  town  of 
Ithaca,  where  passers-by  might  sacrifice.3  How 
many  of  the  "  altars "  were  really  temples,  one 
cannot  say,  but  in  these  cases  no  buildings  are  men- 
tioned. There  were,  however,  sacred  buildings, 
which  were  "  not  to  be  entered,"  and  which  may 
have  been  mere  booth-like  structures,  roofed  over 
by  the  priest  himself.4  Other  shrines  were  grander ; 
one  of  Apollo  in  Ilion,  was  located  upon  the  citadel, 
and  was  very  rich,  while  Zeus  had  an  altar  and 
priest  on  Mount  Ida,  and  also  in  Ilion.5  Aphrodite 
had  in  Paphos  a  smoking  altar ;  and  the  men  who 
ate  the  holy  cattle  of  Hyperion  proposed  to  build 

1  XVI,  231  ;  XXIV,  306  ;  xxii,  333-336. 

2  VIII,  238-241  ;  XXIII,  147-148;  XI,  807-808. 

3  vi,  162-163;  xvii,  205-211. 
*  V,  512;  1,39. 

6  V,  446-448 ;  512  ;  VII,  83 ;  VIII,  48  ;  XVI,  604-605  ;  XXII, 
171-172. 


144  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

him  a  "  rich  temple  "  in  Ithaca  and  fill  it  with  good 
things.1  A  shrine  of  Athena  in  Ilion  was  called  a 
"  holy  home,"  was  fitted  with  large  double  doors 
and  secured  by  bolts  and  a  hook  or  lock.  It  con- 
tained, apparently,  a  seated  statue,  and  a  priestess 
presided  over  it.  The  "  house  of  Erechtheus,"  one 
of  Athena's  favourite  haunts,  was  a  well-built  struc- 
ture in  Athens.2  Mentions  of  temple-building  and 
temples  occur  several  other  times,  and  certain 
places  called  "  holy  "  probably  contained  the  dwell- 
ing of  some  god.3 

The  temple  of  Apollo  in  Pytho  is  mentioned 
twice ;  in  the  Iliad  it  is  an  extremely  rich  shrine, 
with  stone  threshold,  and  no  oracle  is  mentioned. 
The  name  of  this  holy  place  was  synonymous  with 
wealth.  In  the  Odyssey,  the  oracle  is  spoken  of  and 
seems  to  be  in  great  repute;  no  priests  are  men- 
tioned.4 The  shrine  of  Zeus  at  Dodona  was,  how- 
ever, the  most  developed  of  the  holy  places;  it  was 
attended  by  priests  who  practised  the  characteristic 
rites  of  ascetics  and  prophets,  not  washing  the  feet, 
and  sleeping  upon  the  ground.  This  seems  to  be 
the  only  case  where  mediums,  rendered  holy  by 
rites  and  renunciatory  practices,  were  needed  to 
approach  the  gods.  Consultation  of  the  oracle  of 
Zeus   is  not   mentioned  in   the   Iliad,  but  in   the 

1  viii,  363  ;  xii,  346-347. 

2  VI,  88-89  ;  269  ff ;  379  ;  vii,  81. 

8  II,  549  ;  vi,  10  ;  I,  38  ;    252  ;  366 ;  390  j  II,  508;  520;  cf.  535 ; 
IV,  46  ;   378  ;   V,  446  ;   iii,  278. 
*  IX,  404-405  ;  viii,  79-81. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES         145 

Odyssey  it  is  apparently  a  common  thing  to  learn 
the  will  of  Zeus  from  the  tall  oak  of  Dodona.1 

Hills  were  sometimes  sacred  to  the  gods ;  indeed 
most  shrines  were  on  high  ground.  Further,  groves 
of  the  gods  were  common.  Perhaps  they  might 
be  included  in  the  tracts  of  land  around  the  holy 
places ;  such  demesnes  are  mentioned  a  number  of 
times.2 

Thus  the  power  of  the  main  morte  extended  over 
all  the  possessions  and  life  of  the  people,  and  the 
living  were  in  large  measure  servants  of  the  dead. 
And  yet  their  state  was  far  less  onerous  than  that 
of  the  surrounding  older  civilisations.  They  were 
at  least  delivered  from  a  sacerdotal  caste-system 
and  a  developed  priesthood. 

It  is  clear  from  what  has  been  said  that  Homeric 
ceremonies  and  ritual  were  remarkably  simple,  and 
relations  with  the  gods  exceptionally  direct.  The 
cause  for  the  priest's  existence  is  thus  removed. 
The  reason  for  the  shaman's  power  in  all  cases  is 
that  there  must  be  one  who  has  been  initiated  into 
the  possession  of  mystic  power ;  who  knows  just 
what  to  do  and  especially  what  to  say,  —  what 
formula  of  many  complicated  formulas  to  use  under 
given  conditions ;  and  for  such  a  functionary  the 
simple  Greek  ceremonies  had  no  need.  Men  dealt 
directly  with  their  gods ;  among  some  devout  peo- 

1  XVI,  233-235 ;  xiv,  327-330. 

2  xvi,  471;  II,  506;  vi,  266;  291-292;  ix,  200;  x,  509-510; 
xvii,  205-211  ;  xx,  278;  cf.  11,696;  VIII,  48;  XXIII,  148;  viii, 
363. 

10 


146  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

pies,  the  gods  appeared  openly  as  companions,  or 
had  done  so  in  the  not  remote  past.  The  patriarch 
was  the  priest  of  his  family,  and  the  king  discharged 
the  functions  of  public  sacrifice ;  even  the  common 
soldier  could  be  his  own  priest.1 

There  were  very  few  reasons,  therefore,  on  ac- 
count of  which  the  priest  should  be  a  man  apart,  a 
sanctified  and  holy  man.  Even  the  cult-language 
was  simple;  though  the  gods  called  several  things 
by  names  different  from  the  terms  employed  by 
men,2  it  is  not  conceivable  that  a  religious  jargon 
was  in  use.  Beyond  the  ascetic  priests,  mentioned 
in  connection  with  the  shrine  at  Dodona,  the  rest 
of  the  profession  had  to  seek  other  distinction  than 
that  of  possessing  superhuman  knowledge  acquired 
in  states  of  mental  aberration,  —  states  commonly 
induced  hypnotically  or  by  the  influence  of  drugs,  or 
by  hunger  and  physical  collapse.  There  were  no 
professional  secrets-of-the-trade. 

The  priest  was  generally  a  man  who  had  by 
repeated  sacrifice  and  services  rendered  himself 
dear  to  a  god,  and  had  then  established  an  altar 
on  his  own  account ;  or  he  was  a  noble  whom  his 
fellow-tribesmen  had  elevated  to  the  care  of  a  com- 
mon shrine.  In  general,  priests  were  not  itinerant, 
but  were  connected  with  a  fixed  locality  and  shrine, 
and   with   a   special  god.3     The   priests   of    great 

1  I,  594 ;  i,  22-26  ;  vii,  201-206  ,  xix,  179  ;  II,  400-401. 

2  I,  403-404;  II,  813-814 ;  XIV,  291 ;  XX,  73-74  ;  xii,  61. 

3  Naegelsbach,  IV,  198;  I,  11;  V,  9-10;  77;  VI,  298;  XVI, 
234-235 ;  604 ;  ix,  197-198 ;  cf .  Friedreich,  art.  143. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES         147 

temples  were  regularly  of  noble  birth.  Though 
priests  were  apparently  immune  from  military  ser- 
vice, and  very  rich  and  honoured,  still  the  dis- 
tinction was  individual,  not  hereditary.  The  sons 
of  great  priests  appeared  on  the  battlefield ;  also,  if 
the  sacerdotal  office  was  elective,  claimants  could 
easily  be  set  aside,  and  consequently  all  opportunity 
of  forming  an  hereditary  guild  or  caste  was  removed.1 
Priests  were  almost  invariably  male ;  one  woman,  a 
Thracian,  had  been  "  made  "  priestess  of  Athena  by 
the  Trojans;  she  was  the  wife  of  a  noble  Trojan, 
and  discharged  her  family  duties  as  other  women 
did.2 

However  uncertain  the  priest's  office  was,  he  was 
an  important  man  in  the  state,  and  in  its  way  the 
priesthood  was  a  profession.3  The  priest  was  the 
representative  on  earth  of  some  god,  even  if  that 
meant  merely  that  he  was  the  god's  favourite ;  and 
in  him  and  his  insignia,  his  god  was  reverenced  or 
dishonoured.  In  case  of  the  priest's  dishonour,  the 
wrath  of  his  god  was  aroused  as  by  a  personal 
wrong.  The  story  of  the  plague  in  the  Greek  camp 
before  Ilion  well  illustrates  this.  Chryses,  priest  of 
Apollo,  inhabiting  a  holy  town  where  he  had  built 
an  altar  and  "  roofed  over  a  temple,"  came  to  the 
Greek  camp  to  request  the  return  of  his  daughter, 
a  prisoner  and  concubine  of  Agamemnon.    He  came 

i  V,  9  ff  ;  VI,  300  ;  XVI,  604-605  ;  cf.  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm. 
Age,  III,  177-187. 

2  VI,  300;  cf.  V,  70-71  ;  XI,  222-224. 

3  I,  62  ;  IX,  574-575  ;  XXIV,  221. 


148  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

"  with  the  fillets  of  the  Farshooter,  upon  a  golden 
staff,"  and,  not  by  haughty  command,  as  is  the  wont 
of  primitive  priests,  but  by  beseeching  and  with 
ransom,  sought  to  obtain  his  request.  This  en- 
treaty and  the  consequent  refusal  of  the  king  wit- 
ness to  a  weakness  of  the  priesthood.  But  when 
the  request  had  been  refused,  the  priest's  prayer  for 
vengeance  met  instant  answer  from  his  patron,  and 
the  Greeks  were  forced  to  bear  the  consequences  of 
their  king's  sin  until  reparation  was  made  and  the 
daughter  humbly  returned  "without  ransom  and 
without  price."1 

At  these  altars  and  temples,  the  priests  seem  to 
have  had  the  general  function  of  "pray-er,"  which 
would  indicate  that  there  were  occasions  when  a 
man  would  prefer  to  have  his  praying  done  by  a 
favourite  of  the  god.  No  doubt  emolument  of  some 
kind  was  derived  from  such  sacrifices  or  prayers 
offered  through  the  priest's  agency ;  at  any  rate,  all 
priests  were  rich  to  Homer,  and  one  of  them 
possessed  the  finest  "  dark "  wine  of  which  he 
knew.2 

There  was  an  inferior  kind  of  priest  or  sacrifice- 
observer,  who  did  the  praying  for  the  Suitors;  in 
the  absence  of  the  need  of  regular  mediums  between 
gods  and  men,  religious  functions  tended  thus  to 
degenerate  into  augury  and   the  like.     Priests  are 

il,  12  ff. 

2  Cf.  the  word  for  priest  (I,  11);  V,  9;  cf.  77-78;  ix,  196  ff  ; 
359. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        149 

spoken  of  with  soothsayers  and  augurs  as  not  al- 
ways reliable.1 

The  Homeric  cult,  therefore,  starting  from  the 
hypothesis  of  immediate  and  easy,  if  expensive 
"  laying  "  of  the  soul,  worked  itself  out  to  a  compar- 
atively comfortable  relation  of  gdds  and  men.  The 
trend  of  nature  and  environment  saved  the  early 
Greeks  from  the  terrible  nightmare  of  balancing 
good  and  evil  spirits,  where  the  daimons  of  ill  were 
ever  watchful  and  the  higher,  protective  powers  not 
always  available.  To  this  more  kindly  view  the 
Greek  religion  owes  its  more  genial  form.  It  is 
indeed  a  regime  of  fear  and  submission,  but  it  is 
sunshine  and  happiness  when  compared  with  the 
Chaldasan  and  other  Eastern  religions,  with  their 
bloody  rites  and  savage  gloom,  their  unbearable 
onus  of  sacrifice  and  perennial  demands  of  a 
minutely  differentiated  and  domineering  priesthood. 
Nothing  could  more  clearly  prove  the  genius  of  the 
Homeric  cult  to  be  genuinely  Hellenic  than  the 
sharpness  of  this  broad  contrast;  and  if  contrast 
were  carried  into  strict  detail,  the  proof  would  be 
the  more  convincing.  In  the  simple  machinery  of 
the  Homeric  cult  there  is  scarcely  a  mark  of  East- 
ern influence;  conservatism  is  ever  the  character- 
istic of  religion,  and  nowhere  is  conservatism 
stronger  than  in  the  maintenance  of  forms  of  cult- 
procedure,  which  have  been  handed  down  from  gen- 
eration to  generation. 

1  xxi,  145-146  ;  xxii,  321  ff  ;  XXIV,  220-222. 


150  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

If  success  in  life  lay  in  keeping  on  good  terms 
with  the  higher  powers,  and  if  sin  against  the  rights 
and  desires  of  these  powers  was  visited  with  so 
stern  a  punishment,  sacrifices  were  not  always 
enough  assurance  for  man.  It  was  necessary  in 
case  of  doubt  to  learn  beforehand  the  attitude  of 
the  gods  towards  a  projected  undertaking,  to  gain 
advice  that  would  save  from  misfortune  and  loss. 
This  questioning  of  the  future  took  various  forms. 

Belief  in  the  prophetic  nature  of  dreams  was  very 
strong,  though  less  implicit  than  in  other  methods 
of  prophecy.1  The  dream  was  a  shadowy  creature, 
sent  by  one  or  other  of  the  gods,  generally  Zeus, 
which  assumed  the  form  of  some  well-known  per- 
son ;  it  stood  at  the  head  of  the  sleeper  and  spoke 
the  will  of  the  deity ;  or  it  prophesied  or  acted  in 
such  manner  that  an  omen  could  easily  be  drawn. 
A  deceptive  dream  was  sent  by  Zeus  to  Agamem- 
non ;  the  god  summoned  the  dream :  "  Up !  go  to 
the  camp  of  the  Achseans  and  bid  Agamemnon  pre- 
pare the  people  for  war,  for  now  he  may  take  Ilion." 
The  dream  departed  and  stood  at  the  head  of  the 
king  in  the  form  of  the  wise  old  counsellor,  Nestor. 
When  the  message  of  Zeus  had  been  repeated,  the 
dream  left  the  waking  king,  who  arose  and  acted  at 
once  upon  the  advice  given ;  the  rest  of  the  chiefs 
had  no  doubt  of  the  significance  of  the  dream,  inas- 
much as  a  king  had  seen  it.2  It  is  noticeable  that 
there  was  no  misapprehension  whatever  regarding 

l  Cf.  1,62-63.  2  II,  8ff. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES        151 

the  unreality  of  the  vision ;  dreams  were  called  by 
the  same  name  as  the  souls  of  the  dead  —  eidola  — 
and  were  also  "  mindless."  They  could  slip  through 
the  strap-hole  of  a  door,  and  were  as  incorporeal 
and  dim  as  were  souls ;  'the  demos  of  dreams  was 
located  near  the  entrance  to  the  spirit-world.1 
Dreams  were  sometimes  created  on  the  spot  by  a  di- 
vinity, and  were  regularly  "divine;"  it  was  well 
known  at  what  period  of  sleep  they  are  wont  to 
come,  and  a  person  was  then  said  to  be  in  the 
"  dream-gates."  2 

How  the  dreams  passed  over  into  augury  is 
illustrated  by  the  complicated  vision  of  Penelope, 
ominous  of  the  return  of  Odysseus  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Suitors.  Penelope  had  twenty  white 
geese  which  she  kept  in  the  court ;  in  this  dream  a 
great  eagle  swooped  down  from  the  mountain  and 
broke  the  necks  of  them  all ;  they  were  scattered, 
dead,  throughout  the  court,  and  the  eagle  flew  away. 
Penelope  cried  out,  and  the  women  of  the  house 
gathered  about  her,  —  all  in  the  dream.  The  eagle 
then  returned  and  perched  upon  the  edge  of  the 
roof,  saying  with  human  voice  :  "  Be  of  good  cheer ; 
it  is  not  a  dream,  but  actuality.  The  geese  were 
the  Suitors,  the  eagle  was  I  myself,  and  now  I,  your 
husband,  return  to  inflict  unseemly  destruction  upon 
all  the  Suitors." 

The  disguised  Odysseus,  to  whom  Penelope  told 

1  xix,  562;  iv,  802 ;  38;  824  ;  xxiv,  12. 

2  iv,  796  ;  809  ;  xiv,  495. 


152  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

this  dream,  replied  that  it  was  impossible  to  inter- 
pret the  dream  otherwise  than  as  the  dream-Odys- 
seus had  done.1  It  is  noticeable  that  Homer  did 
not  believe  implicitly  in  dreams ;  there  were 
"baleful  dreams,"  which  might  allure  one  to  his 
destruction ;  the  distinction  between  onar  and 
hupar  points  to  some  doubt.  Penelope,  in  the  case 
mentioned,  answered  Odysseus  that  dreams  were 
both  true  and  false ;  according  to  the  symbolism  of 
her  expression,  this  was  according  as  they  proceeded 
through  the  horn  or  ivory  gates.2  None  the  less, 
Homer,  in  his  privilege  of  "  prophecy  after  the  act," 
took  pains  to  make  dreams  foreshadow  reality. 
Whether  the  belief  in  dreams  was  implicit  or  not, 
all  dreams  were  acted  upon  at  once ;  or  the  senti- 
ments appropriate  to  the  content  of  the  vision  were 
at  once  displayed  on  waking.3 

Dreams  were  generally  interpreted  by  the 
dreamer;  but  there  were  men  who  bore  the  name 
of  dream-interpreters.  They  do  not  appear  to  have 
been  a  special  class,  and  were  probably  merely  men 
of  more  than  common  imagination  and  keenness  in 
plausible  interpretation.  One  of  the  very  few 
similes  of  Homer  which  turn  upon  habits  of  mental 
action  is  derived  from  a  characteristic  of  dream-life.4 

But  omens  derived  from  the  visible  world  played 
the  greatest  part  in  Homeric  prophecy.     They  might 

1  xix:  536-558. 

2  II,   6  ff ;  xix,  547  ;  xx,  87-90  ;  xix,  560-567. 
8  II,  36  ff ;  iv,  840  ;  vi,  20  ff. 

*  I,  63  ;  V,  149-150  ;  XXII,  199  ;  cf.  Jebb,  31. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES        153 

happen  at  any  time,  though  more  especially  on  the 
eve  of  some  important  undertaking  ;  they  might  be 
requested  or  occur  of  themselves.  Omens  from  the 
gods  were  really  threats  and  warnings,  or  approval 
and  promise  of  success.  Hence  they  were  watched 
for  anxiously,  and  if  they  were  unfavourable  the 
gods  were  at  once  propitiated  and  besought  in 
intense  fear.  There  is  something  pitiful  in  the 
abject  terror  of  brave  men,  listening  to  the  heavy 
thundering  of  Zeus,  foreboding  from  it  great  ill,  and 
not  daring  to  drink  their  wine  before  pouring  a 
libation  to  the  blustering  power  in  whose  presence 
they  felt  so  helpless  :  "  All  night  Zeus  the  counsellor 
meditated  evil  against  them,  thundering  terribly. 
And  pale  fear  seized  them,  and  they  poured  wine 
from  their  cups  upon  the  ground,  nor  did  any  one 
dare  to  drink  before  he  had  poured  a  libation  to  the 
exalted  son  of  Kronos." 1  These  men  had  done 
nothing  wrong;  the  petty  personal  grievances  of 
the  higher  powers  had  brought  them  together  to 
fight  each  other,  to  suffer  wounds  and  fear,  and  to 
die  far  from  home  and  friends,  food  for  the  dogs  and 
birds  of  prey,  and  destined  to  endure  untimely  the 
dreariness  of  the  home  of  Hades.2  At  the  most 
insignificant  omen  of  ill-fortune  the  stoutest  hero 
trembled ;  at  the  breaking  of  a  new  bow-string,  or 
the  loss  of  a  spear-head, 3  —  for  such  an  omen  indi- 
cated a  withdrawal  of  the  gods'  protection  and  a 

1  VII,  478-481.  8  XV,  466-470  ;  XVI,  114  ff. 

2  Cf .  I,  1-9. 


154  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

possibility  of  their  anger,  against  which  man  was 
utterly  impotent. 

Omens  were  drawn  chiefly  from  aerial  sources,  from 
the  regions  above  the  earth.  Thunder,  especially  on 
a  cloudless  day,  was  the  great  omen  of  Zeus ;  if  heard 
on  the  right,  it  was  favourable.  Such  an  omen  was 
sometimes  asked  for  by  one  side  in  a  combat,  and 
might  be  mistaken  by  the  other  for  a  portent  to 
themselves.1  The  thunderbolt,  gleaming  with  flame 
and  emitting  strong  odours  of  sulphur,  was  cast  to 
the  earth  before  the  feet  of  men  and  gods  as  a 
warning  to  desist  at  once  from  an  undertaking 
displeasing  to  Zeus.  Men  were  in  this  case  "  smitten 
with  pale  fear."  Another  ethereal  portent  was  the 
rainbow,  which  meant  either  war  or  a  fierce  winter 
which  would  make  an  end  of  men's  works  and 
injure  the  sheep.2  The  snowstorm  also  was  an 
omen  from  Zeus,  who  was  "  showing  to  men  those 
weapons  of  his."  Certain  stars  were  ominous  of 
fever  and  disaster ;  such  was  in  particular  the 
autumn-star,  the  dog  of  Orion;  and  shooting-stars 
were  also  portentous.  Showers  and  dew  of  blood 
foretold  death.3  * 

Omens  were  also  derived  from  the  accidental 
actions  of  men;  sneezing,  an  involuntary  blessing 
or  an  involuntary  prayer  in  favour  of  an  inceptive 

1  xx,  112-114  ;  VIII,  170-171 ;  XIII,  242-244 ;  XVII,  595 ;  xxi, 
412-415  ;  II,  353  ;  IX,  236  ;  XV,  377-380. 

2  VIII,  75-77;  133f£;  xxiv,  539-540  ;  XVII,  547-550. 

8  XII.  280;  XXII,  26-31  ;  IV,  75-77;  XI,  53-55;  XVI,  459- 
460. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES        155 

undertaking,  etc.1  Before  the  killing  of  the  Suitors, 
Odysseus  requested  a  double  omen  from  Zeus,  one 
within  and  one  without  the  house.  Thunder,  it  is 
said,  rolled  immediately  from  the  snowy  peaks  of 
Olympus,  and  Odysseus  rejoiced.  The  omen  within 
the  house  was  given  by  a  poor  woman-slave,  who 
paused  in  her  grinding  of  grain  and  prayed  to  Zeus 
that,  as  he  was  then  giving  an  omen  to  some  one, 
he  would  pity  her  too,  and  deliver  the  house  of  the 
Suitors  whose  presence  made  her  labour  so  heavy. 
She  prayed  that  on  that  very  night  they  might  eat 
their  last  meal  in  Odysseus's  house,  and  Odysseus, 
hearing  her  prayer,  "rejoiced  in  the  omen  and  in 
the  thunder  of  Zeus  ;  for  he  thought  he  would  get 
vengeance  on  the  wrongdoers."2  It  was  evidently 
a  good  time  to  pray  when  the  gods  were  in  a 
granting  humour,  especially  for  one  whose  lowly 
position  and  poverty  could  not  be  expected  to  re- 
ceive any  consideration  from  the  venal  divinities. 
Faith  in  this  omen,  as  usual,  was  immediate  and 
implicit. 

Other  portents  were  the  turning  into  stone  of  a 
serpent,  and  of  a  sbftp  ;3  in  the  latter  case,  the  prod- 
igy was  the  beginning  of  a  prophesied  punishment, 
and  the  threatened  people  hastened  to  beg  off 
from  the  rest  of  the  chastisement  with  sacrifices 
and  vows.     Again,  when  the  followers  of  Odysseus 

1  xvii,  541 -546;  ii,  34-35. 

2  xx,  100  ff;  120-121  quoted. 
8  11,318-319;  xiii,  163  ff. 


156  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

had  killed  the  cattle  of  Hyperion,  and  were  roasting 
the  meat,  the  skins,  we  are  told,  crept  about  and  "  the 
flesh,  both  the  cooked  and  the  raw,  bellowed  upon 
the  spits,  and  the  voice  was  as  that  of  bulls.  "  1  The 
weirdest  omen  in  Homer  is  that  given  by  Athena 
when  she  smote  the  minds  of  the  Suitors.2  The 
seer  Theoclymenus  observed  the  strange  actions  of 
the  men,  and  saw  the  forehall  and  court  full  of  ei- 
dola,  "  hastening  to  Erebus  beneath  the  West."  He 
left  the  house  to  avoid  the  terrible  wrath  and  the 
pollution  of  death  about  to  descend. 

One  prevalent  form  of  omen  remains  yet  to  be 
considered.  The  Greeks  looked  much  to  the  heavens 
for  hints  as  to  the  will  of  the  gods,  and  the  move- 
ments of  birds  became  ominous  in  an  exceedingly 
high  degree.  As  dreams  and  omens  came  most 
commonly  from  Zeus  (as  a  sort  of  agent  of  fate),  so 
augury  was  based  chiefly  upon  the  birds  sent  by 
Zeus.  As  the  thunder,  coming  from  the  king  of 
the  gods,  was  the  chief  of  omens,  so  in  auspices 
was  the  eagle  of  Zeus  the  chief  of  birds.  The 
usual  rules  regarding  lucky  and  unlucky  directions 
obtain  here  also ;  the  thunder  of  a  favourable  omen 
came  from  the  right,  and,  in  the  flight  of  birds, 
right  was  lucky  and  left  unlucky.  This  distinc- 
tion between  right  and  left  was  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance among  the  Chaldaeans,  and  among  the 
Greeks  it  is  further  witnessed  in  several  ceremo- 
nies of  serving  and  drinking,  where  the  custom  of 

1  xii,  394-396.  2  xx,  345-357. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        157 

passing  the  cup  toward  the  right  was  scrupulously 
maintained.1 

Before  the  beginning  of  an  undertaking,  the  omen 
of  the  birds'  flight  might  occur,  either  asked  in 
prayer  with  sacrifice  or  libation,  or  unasked.  It 
was  at  once  accepted  as  authentic  and  conclusive 
by  the  pious.2  But  the  omen  was  not  always  con- 
fined to  the  mere  flight  of  the  birds  ;  it  was,  in  im- 
portant cases,  more  complicated,  consisting  of  a 
symbolic  action  on  the  part  of  the  birds  them- 
selves, which  was  then  interpreted.  Such  omens 
were  generally,  but  not  always,  accepted  with  sac- 
rifices, libation,  or  prayer.3  As  the  Trojans,  for  ex- 
ample, stood  victorious  before  the  Greek  wall,  an 
eagle  came  up  on  their  left  carrying  a  bloody  snake, 
alive  and  gasping.  The  snake  turned  and  struck 
the  eagle,  which  dropped  it  and  flew  off  with  a 
cry  ;  the  snake  fell  into  the  midst  of  the  crowd 
of  Trojans,  who  shuddered  with  fear.  The  inter- 
pretation was  that  when  the  Trojans  had  taken  the 
wall,  they  could  not  hold  it,  but  would  be  driven 
off  with  pain  and  loss.4 

Several  of  these  complicated  omens  occurred  pre- 
ceding the  return  of  Odysseus  and  the  death  of  the 
Suitors.  They  were  all  essentially  alike,  three  ap- 
pearing to  the  friends  of  Odysseus,  and  one  to  the 
Suitors ;  in  the  omen  to  the  latter,  of  course,  the 

1  Lehmann,  I,  62 ;  I,  597  ;  xvii,  365. 

2  XIII,  821-823  ;  XXIV,  292-295  ;  315-321  ;  xxiv,  311-313. 

8  VIII,  247  ft;  X,  274-277.  *  XII,  199-208  ;  218  ft. 


158  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

birds  flew  on  the  left.  Some  of  the  men  warned 
were  inclined  to  give  up  their  object,  but  finally 
all  persisted,  thus  disregarding  divine  advice.  All 
the  omens  given  to  Odysseus's  family  naturally 
turned  upon  the  destruction  of  the  Suitors,  in  some 
symbolic  way.1 

In  general,  then,  the  belief  was  strong  in  the 
significance  of  the  flight  of  birds.  This  is  illus- 
trated also  by  colloquial  usage :  "  Be  not  a  bird  of 
ill  omen  to  me."2  But  under  the  influence  of  mar- 
tial excitement,  or  in  the  blindness  of  sin  preced- 
ing destruction,  the  birds  were  sometimes  spoken  of 
with  apparent  indifference.  After  one  of  the  omens 
concerning  the  return  of  Odysseus,  Eurymachus  de- 
clared that  not  all  birds  were  portentous.  Conflict 
of  authority,  as  well  as  military  ardour,  led  Hector 
to  reject  the  omen  unfavourable  to  the  Trojan  occu- 
pation of  the  Greek  camp.  Zeus  had  assured  him 
of  success  on  that  day ;  therefore  he  thought  that 
those  who  advised  him  to  obey  the  birds,  rather 
than  the  sender  of  the  birds,  were  fools.  Hector 
even  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  he  cared  naught 
for  the  omens  of  birds.3  Thus  was  the  conflict 
of  authority  evaded ;  yet  the  omen  was  accom- 
plished. Hector  evidently  overstated  the  power 
given  by  Zeus,  and  the  impression  left  is  that  the 
omens   were    trustworthy,   but    the    weak    human 

1  xx,  242  ff;  ii,  146-156;  xv,  160-165;  174-178;  525-528. 

2  XXIV,  218-219. 

8  ii,  181-182;  XI,  192-194;  XII,  234-243. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES        159 

mind  at  fault.  Perhaps  dramatic  considerations 
led  Homer  ominously  to  foreshadow  the  return  of 
Odysseus,  as  he  did  the  deaths  of  Hector  and 
Achilles  in  the  Iliad ;  none  the  less  this  expedient, 
if  it  was  one,  was  well-chosen  and  is  a  witness 
that  deference  to  portents  was  deep-rooted  in  the 
people. 

The  means  of  questioning  the  future  thus  far  de- 
scribed dealt  with  the  unconscious  in  man,  and  with 
nature,  and  interpretation  was  generally  a  private 
affair.  Before  we  come  to  that  prophecy  which 
deals  with  no  external  signs,  there  are  still  a  few 
examples  of  omens  which  were  too  complicated  for 
the  common  man  to  interpret  and  which  demanded 
the  superior  knowledge  of  the  prophet.  We  have 
seen  that  the  prophet  Calchas  was  also  the  best  of 
omen-interpreters ;  l  he  it  was  who  was  called  upon 
to  explain  the  omen  of  the  snake  and  sparrows, 
symbolic  of  the  fate  of  the  Trojan  expedition.  The 
story  is  that  while  the  Greeks  were  sacrificing  at 
Aulis,  before  the  start,  a  "  great  sign  "  appeared.  A 
terrible  serpent,  blood-red  on  the  back,  was  seen  to 
glide  out  from  beneath  the  altar  and  climb  an  adja- 
cent plane-tree.  Upon  the  topmost  branches  of  this 
tree  was  the  nest  of  a  sparrow,  containing  eight 
fledglings.  These,  with  the  mother-bird,  the  serpent 
devoured,  and  then  was  suddenly  turned  to  stone  by 
Zeus  who  had  sent  him.  The  rest  of  the  "people  stood 
in  amazement  and  wonder ;  but  Calchas  was  able  to 
i  I,  69. 


160  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

prophesy  the  nine  years'  war  about  Ilion,  and  its  fall 
in  the  tenth.  The  tale  runs  on  how  in  the  tenth 
year  the  omen  and  prophecy  were  recalled  by  Odys- 
seus, who  urged  the  army  to  remain  and  see  "if 
Calchas  prophesied  truly  or  not."1  It  is  evident 
that  long  waiting  and  ill-success  had  engendered  a 
certain  scepticism.  In  like  manner  the  prophet 
Halitherses,  while  the  rest  were  dumb,  interpreted 
an  omen  concerning  the  return  of  Odysseus,  recall- 
ing a  prophecy  he  himself  had  made  twenty  years  be- 
fore, and  boasting  that  he  was  "not  inexperienced."2 

Since  the  gods  ruled  all  life,  prophecy  was  a  spe- 
cial function  of  theirs ;  they  knew  all  the  future.3 
They  sent  dreams,  omens,  and  birds  to  reveal  parts 
of  the  future  to  men.  And  not  only  in  this  sym- 
bolic and  roundabout  way  did  they  make  known 
their  will ;  by  a  species  of  possession  they  entered 
into  living  beings,  and  caused  them  to  speak  out 
concerning  coming  events.  Perhaps  the  oak  of  Zeus 
at  Dodona  spoke  or  rustled  in  prophecy;  at  any 
rate,  the  horse  of  Achilles,  inspired  by  Hera,  re- 
vealed the  future  with  human  utterance.4 

It  is  not  just  plain  how  a  man  became  the  mouth- 
piece of  the  gods.  It  is  stated  of  a  prophet  merely 
that  such  and  such  a  god  loved  him,  or  that  "  Apollo 
endowed   him  with  the  gift  of   prophecy."5     But 

i  II,  300  ff. 

2  ii,  155  ff. 

3  VIII,  473-474 ;  IX,  410  ff;  XVII,  408-409;  XVIII,  94-96; 
XX,  339. 

*  xiv,  327-328  ;  XIX,  404-417.  6  I,  72 ;  xv,  245-246. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        161 

from  the  fact  that  prophetic  force  was  given  to  the 
utterances  of  the  dying,  and  that  the  souls  of  the 
dead  could  reveal  the  future,  it  is  not  unreasonable 
to  conclude  that  "second  sight"  generally  came 
in  some  such  state  of  bodily  collapse.  When  one 
prophesied  "  not  as  a  prophet,"  he  said  "  what  the 
gods  put  into  his  heart." 1 

The  seer  did  possess  a  second  sight2  and  was  a 
man  apart.  Prophecy  was  a  thing  of  the  inner 
man ;  a  direct  communication  from  the  god,  if  not  a 
possession  by  him,  and  had  no  necessary  connection 
with  external  portents.  Explanation  of  omens 
was  merely  an  avocation  of  the  prophet.  Therefore 
prophecy,  as  nothing  else  in  the  Greek  religion,  de- 
manded specially  qualified  men.  Such  were  the 
priests  of  Zeus  at  Dodona,  men  qualified  for  their  office 
by  tests  and  privations.  Ascetic  practices  are  almost 
inseparable  from  auto-hypnotic  trances  and  ecstasies 
induced  by  fasting,  fatigue,  and  the  use  of  narcotics 
and  poisons.3  In  some  such  way,  probably,  the  early 
Greek  seers  were  initiated  into  direct  relations  with 
the  gods.  Concerning  the  origin  of  the  prophet,  no 
indications  beyond  these  vague  ones  are  to  be  found. 

The  fact  remains,  however,  that  the  prophets  were 
the  mouthpieces  of  the  gods,  and  therefore  that 
prophecy  was  the  voice  of  the  gods  in  its  clearest 

1  XVI,  852-854;  XXII,  359-360;  XXIII,  80-81  ;  cf.  x,  492  ff ; 
i,  200-202. 

2  xx,  355-356. 

8  Lehmann,  III  &  IV  ("Psychology  of  Magic"),  passim;  cf. 
Lippert,  I,  625  ff . 

11 


162  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

tone.  The  order  of  declining  importance  seems  to 
have  been :  prophet,  priest,  dream-interpreter.1  The 
prophet  was  supposed  to  "  perceive  in  his  heart "  the 
will  of  the  gods ;  when  Athena  and  Apollo  arranged 
a  duel  between  champions  of  the  Greeks  and  Tro- 
jans, Helenus,  the  seer,  "  felt  it  in  his  heart "  and 
persuaded  Hector  to  a  challenge,  telling  him  it  was 
not  yet  his  time  to  die.2  The  knowledge  of  the 
prophet  extended  also  with  especial  accuracy  into  the 
past  and  the  present ;  his  knowledge  was  universal. 
Calchas  was  by  far  the  best  of  the  seers  of  the 
Greek  force,  for  he  "knew  the  present,  the  future, 
and  the  past "  and  had  led  the  way  for  the  ships  to 
Troy  "  through  his  gift  of  prophecy  which  Phcebus 
Apollo  gave  him."  3  The  weak  spot  in  the  Trojan 
wall  may  have  been  discovered  with  the  aid  of  a 
seer.4  As  has  been  seen,  prophecies  were  made 
whose  fulfilment  was  to  be  postponed  many  years. 
There  was  an  ancient  prophecy  to  the  Phaeacians  of 
Poseidon's  wrath,  which  was  so  old  that  it  had 
ceased  to  be  feared  until  the  beginning  of  its  fulfil- 
ment had  brought  on  a  terrible  calamity.  It  had 
been  "long  ago"  foretold  to  Polyphemus  that  he 
would  lose  his  eye,  by  a  seer  who  "  was  of  surpass- 
ing skill  in  prophecy  and  grew  old  while  dwelling 
among  and  foretelling  the  future  for  the  Cyclopes." 
This  was  another  case  where  the  carelessness  that 
came  with  continued  non-fulfilment  of  a  prophecy 

1  I,  62-63.  f  I,  69-70;  72. 

2  VII,  44-53.  *  VI,  438. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        163 

really  led  to  its  full  completion.  It  was  never  well 
to  risk  the  passing  over  of  a  prophecy;  one  who 
embarked  upon  a  course  of  action  wherein  his 
death  was  prophesied,  never  came  through  safe ;  it 
was  the  custom  to  avoid  the  fulfilment  of  such 
prophecies  by  promptly  giving  up  the  questionable 
projects.1  Prophecy  in  Hades  extended  even  to  the 
disclosing  of  one's  whole  future  life.2 

Something  has  been  said  above  as  to  the  character 
of  the  seer ;  he  has  been  found  to  have  been  a  man 
apart  from  other  men  in  his  superior  knowledge 
and  "gift"  of  prophecy,3  though  he  might  accom- 
pany armies  and  fight  with  the  rest,  and  is  found 
resident  among  a  tribe  in  a  sort  of  professional 
function.  His  main  business  was  direct  inter- 
vention between  gods  and  men  in  the  matter  of 
revealing  the  future,  although  he  often  interpreted 
omens.  He  was  even  associated  with  priests  in 
sacrificial  duties  and  was  sometimes  very  rich. 
In  general,  he  was  highly  honoured  as  a  valuable 
member  of  society,  though  inferior  by  far  to  the 
king  and  held  accountable  for  crime.4  The  great 
seer  Teiresias  was  honoured  as  a  prince  in  the  spirit- 
world,  and  retained  by  favour  of  Persephone  his 
mind    and    gifts    of    prophecy ;    to   him    Odysseus 

1  II,  300  ff;  ii,  170-172;  viii,  565-569;  xiii,  163  ff;  ix,  507- 
510;    XI,  329  ff;  794-795. 

2  xi,  100-137. 

8  XI,  329  ff ;  II,  832  ;  858. 

*  Cf.  XIII,  70 ;  663-664  ;  xvii,  383-384  ;  I,  80  ff ;  cf.  33  ff ;  xv, 
223  ff. 


164  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

resorted,  even  in  the  house  of  Hades.  There  was 
however,  an  inferior  kind  of  seer  who  was  "  called 
in  "  on  occasion  and  was  not  very  valuable ;  for  his 
prophecy  no  one  cared.  Occasionally  it  is  hinted 
that  a  prophet  is  partial  or  corruptible,1  but  the 
prophet  is  promptly  justified  by  Homer. 

Further  evidence  of  the  seer's  special  mission  to 
earth  is  the  fact  that  prophetic  gifts  might  (excep- 
tionally) be  continued  in  one  family  for  generations. 
In  the  family  of  the  noted  Amphiaraus,  his  death 
was  succeeded  by  the  appointment  (by  Apollo)  of 
a  successor  in  the  person  of  his  father's  cousin. 
This  prophetic  gift,  then,  descended,  with  no 
mention  of  further  selection  by  Apollo,  upon  the 
son  of  this  successor,  the  seer  Theoclymenus.  In 
the  narrative  of  the  latter's  flight  before  avengers 
of  blood,  the  names  of  his  ancestors  and  relatives 
mentioned  are  significant  of  some  close  connection 
with  the  gods,  and  one  of  them,  because  of  his 
beauty,  lived  among  the  immortals.2  Thus  the 
family  was  a  favoured  one,  and  in  it  prophecy 
tended  to  become  an  hereditary  profession.  This 
is  the  only  case  of  the  kind  in  Homer ;  as  a  rule, 
prophetic  gifts  were  individual  only.  This  would 
point  to  special  qualities  of  mind  or  special  initiation, 
rather  than  to  hereditary  secret  knowledge,  as  the 
origin  of  the  Homeric  seer. 

1  x,  492-495 ;  xi,  91  ff  ;  i,  415-416;  cf.  XXIV,  220-222 ;  1, 106  ff ; 
ii,  186. 

2  xv,  223  ff:  250-253. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        165 

Other  means  and  methods  for  discovering  the 
will  of  the  gods  were  possessed  in  the  casting  of 
lots  and  in  the  ordeal.  In  lot-casting,  small  pieces 
of  wood  or  other  material  were  marked  and  shaken 
in  a  helmet  till  the  lucky  one  flew  out.  Lots  were 
cast  for  position  in  horse-races  and  turn  in  archery- 
trials  ;  by  brothers,  to  find  who  should  go  to  war ; 
to  decide  who  should  undergo  a  danger  for  his 
comrades  ;  in  the  division  of  property  ;  and,  among 
the  gods,  by  Zeus,  Poseidon,  and  Hades  in  their 
joint  partition  of  the  universe.1  Lots  were  shaken 
for  the  first  shot  in  an  ordeal-duel ;  and,  in  the 
selection  by  lot  of  a  champion  to  meet  Hector's 
challenge,  the  Greeks  showed  the  religious  character 
of  the  ordeal  by  praying  that  the  gods  would  desig- 
nate one  of  their  greatest  warriors.2 

Of  the  ordeal-trial  there  is  at  least  one  good 
example.  Greeks  and  Trojans,  under  solemn  oaths 
and  truce,  agreed  to  leave  the  settlement  of  their 
disputes  to  the  duel  of  the  injured  Menelaus  and 
the  seducer  Alexander.  This  duel  was  to  end  the 
war.  As  the  gods  had  been  solemnly  called  upon 
to  sanctify  the  oaths  of  truce,  so  they  were  present 
to  conclude  the  ordeal.  So  much  trust  was  placed 
in  the  outcome  of  the  trial,  that  Greeks  and  Trojans, 
in  defiance  of  their  own  knowledge  as  to  who  was 
the  guilty  party,  could  pray  ;  "  Whoever  brought  on 

1  XXIII,  352-355 ;  861  ;  XXIV,  400;  ix,  331 ;  x,  206 ;  xiv,  209  ; 
cf.  "  kleron  "  (xiv,  63) ;  XV,  190  ff. 
■  111,316;  VII,  171  ff. 


166  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

these  woes,  let  him  die."  The  outcome  of  the 
combat  itself  was  a  just  one ;  Menelaus  had  Paris  at 
his  mercy.  But  Aphrodite  snatched  him  away ; 
and  so  the  trial  had  not  the  literal  decision  neces- 
sary, though  it  was  claimed  upon  the  advantage  of 
the  Greek  champion,  and  even  Paris  acknowledged 
that  the  gods  had  decided  against  him.1 

The  duel  of  Hector  and  Ajax  was,  in  its  way,  an 
ordeal-trial,  as  are  all  duels,  in  that  it  symbolised 
the  positions  of  the  two  armies  and  peoples.  There 
was  no  result  attained,  as  the  battle  was  a  draw ; 
it  was  stopped  by  the  gods  and  concluded  with 
mutual  gifts  by  the  combatants.2 

These  were  the  various  means  by  which  the 
Homeric  Greeks  assured  themselves  as  to  the  will  of 
the  gods,  that  they  might  be  enabled  to  "justify" 
themselves  before  the  higher  powers  by  adjusting 
all  actions  to  their  will.  The  motive  which  led  to 
the  ceremonials  and  customs  of  sacrifice,  omen- 
reading,  etc.,  was,  on  the  whole,  avoidance  of  evil ; 
insurance  against  the  calamities  of  life,  or  an 
attempt  to  foresee  them.  Homeric  religious  rites 
represent  a  struggle  for  existence  against  super- 
natural power  where  force  cannot  be  employed  and 
where  propitiation  is  the  policy  of  success. 

There  were  in  Homeric  life  various  objects  which, 
from  association  more  or  less  remote  with  the  cult, 
had  acquired  a  certain  sacred  character.  They  were 
fetiches  in  the  broadest  sense;  that  is,  they  had 

1  III,  69  ff ;  320-323  ;  439  ;  457  ff .  2  VII,  39  ff. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        167 

come  to  be  regarded  with  reverence  as  dwellings  of 
spirits,  or  as  in  some  way  endowed  with  a  bit  of  a 
spirit's  personality.  ■  It  is  easy  to  see  that,  as  a  god 
lingered  about  the  shrine  and  altar,  objects  closely 
connected  with  these  would  be  regarded  as  particu- 
larly holy.  Implements  and  emblems  were  of  such 
nature,  and  in  survivals  this  sacredness  extended 
still  further.  Fetiches  had  mostly  to  do  with  the 
dead.  In  life,  besides  his  body,  whatever  a  primitive 
man  owned  or  used  frequently,  became  invested  with 
his  personality — became  himself y  in  a  way.  His 
"  haunts  "  were  also  in  a  certain  degree  himself,  and 
after  death  he  was  supposed  to  take  no  less  an 
interest  in  them  than  he  did  in  life.  The  Homeric 
Greek  was  not  a  "  primitive "  man ;  but,  like  all 
other  men,  he  came  under  the  domination  of  a  cult 
whose  conservatism  registered  the  past  with  strokes 
so  deep  that  when  the  reason  for  usages  was  long 
forgotten,  the  usages  themselves  remained. 

First,  there  were  a  few  usages  which  had  to  do  with 
the  living  alone.  Certain  parts  of  the  body  seem 
to  have  been  under  a  "  tabu  ;  "  and  armour,  sceptres, 
etc.,  were  personal  emblems.1  Further,  superstitions 
have  even  clung  about  the  "name."  Examples 
given  above  of  the  compelling  power  of  the  name 
show  it  closely  connected  with  the  personality  of 
its  bearer ;  the  Cyclops,  seemingly,  could  not  curse 
Odysseus  until  he  had  found  out  his  name.     Heroes 

1  XXII,  75  ;  XXIII,  147 ;  xviii,  86-88  ;  xxii,  475-477  ;  cf.  II, 
261  ff  ;  VI,  230-231  ;  VII,  304-305;  I,  185-187. 


168  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

were  very  anxious  to  have  a  name  live  after 
them.1 

The  personality  of  the  departed  received  perpetua- 
tion at  the  hearth  and  threshold.  The  hearth  was 
the  centre  of  the  home  and  was  presided  over  by 
the  wife.  It  was  once  believed  that  the  ghosts  of 
the  dead  returned  to  share  with  the  survivors  the 
kindly  warmth  and  family  life,2  and  though  in 
Homer  this  notion  is  never  expressed,  still  the 
hearth  was  a  sanctuary.  He  who,  as  a  suppliant, 
took  his  seat  by  the  hearth,  thus  placing  himself 
under  the  protection  of  the  family's  ancestral  gods, 
was  free  from  harm.  After  beseeching  the  queen 
of  the  Phseacians,  Odysseus  seated  himself  in  the 
ashes  of  the  hearth,  by  the  fire.3  Oaths  were  taken 
by  the  "  hospitable  table  and  hearth,"  and  occasion- 
ally the  hearth  was  the  place  of  sacrifice.  The 
threshold  also  seems  to  have  been  a  sanctuary  for 
beggars  and  suppliants.4 

The  tombs  of  the  dead  became,  to  a  certain  extent, 
invested  with  their  authority  and  personality.  The 
graves  of  old  rulers  and  ancestors  became  land- 
marks, and  war-councils  were  held  about  them.5 
These  tombs  readily  became  a  sort  of  "  Mai "  or 
communal     meetingplace ;    sitting     upon    polished 

i  ix,  355  ;  504;  530  ff;  iv,  710;  cf.  XII,  70  ;  XIII,  227. 
2  iii,  234  ;  vii,  248 ;  xxiii,  55 ;  vi,  305  ff ;  Lippert,  II,  144  ff. 
8  vii,  153-154  ;  cf.  162-165. 

*  xiv,  158-159  ;  420  ff  ;  x,  62-63  ;  xvii,  278-279  ;  339-340. 
5  X,  415;  cf.  II,  604;  793;  814;  XI,  166;  371-372  ;  XXIV,  349; 
xxiv,  80-84. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        169 

stones,  in  a  sacred  circle,  the  elders  were  wont  to 
dispense  judgment.  Likewise  the  Phaeacians  sat  in 
assembly  upon  polished  stones.1  In  a  family  gather- 
ing at  Pylos,  the  head  of  the  house  sat  upon  "  white 
stones  shining  with  ointment,"  with  his  royal  sceptre 
in  his  hand,  as  his  father  had  once  sat  before  him.2 

Caves  and  mountains  likewise  became  holy,  pos- 
sibly because  connected  with  some  ancient  burial- 
practices  ;  we  have  seen  how  regularly  shrines  were 
located  on  the  heights.3  Animals  also  became  holy 
for  various  reasons ;  concerning  dogs  and  fish,  which 
"  buried "  men,  there  seem  to  have  arisen  certain 
religious  notions.  Fish  were  "holy,"  were  a  food 
for  the  poor,  and  only  in  need  eaten  by  the  nobles 
and  rich.  The  victim  slain  to  commemorate  an 
oath  was  thrown  to  the  fish  to  be  eaten.4  The  dog, 
in  Homer,  as  elsewhere,  maintained  his  character  of 
ghost-watcher ;  he  saw  spirits  when  men  could  not 
see  them,  or  could  see  them  only  with  divine  aid. 
When  Athena  came  into  the  courtyard  of  Odysseus, 
only  he  and  the  dogs  saw  her;  the  dogs  did  not 
bark,  but  whined  and  fled.5  The  dog  appears  in  the 
lower  world  as  the  restrainer  of  spirits  ;  the  use  of 

1  X Vltl,  503-506 ;  viii,  5-6 ;  cf.  vi,  267 ;  Lippert,  II,  148 ;  379  ff  ; 
Letourueau,  Polit.,  105. 

2  iii,  406-412  ;  cf.   Pietschmann,  166. 

8  Spencer,  Soc.  I,  ch.  XV,  art.  llOff ;  i,  15;  xiii,  349-350;  I,  18; 
44;  VII,  202;  VIII,  47-48. 

4  XVI,  407  ;  cf.  XXI,  122-127  ;  203-204  ;  XIX,  268. 

5  Lippert,  I,  490-498;  xvi,  159-163 ;  the  particle  "ra"(162) 
marks  this  as  a  common  or  natural  thing  ;  cf.  Seymour,  H.  L.  &  V., 
29. 


170  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

"  dog  "  as  a  term  of  shame  so  often,  possibly  points 
to  his  having  once  been  a  cult- victim,  afterwards 
superseded.1  The  eagle  of  Zeus  and  the  hawk  of 
Apollo  were  probably  sacred  as  givers  of  omens. 
Snakes  had  a  religious  importance,  appearing  fre- 
quently in  omens,  as,  for  example,  the  terrible  ser- 
pent sent  by  Zeus,  while  the  Greeks  were  sacrificing 
at  Aulis.2 

,  Holy  animals  were  not  always  connected  immedi- 
ately with  the  dead.  Cult-introduction  and  selec- 
tion might  afford  this  sacred  character,  even  in  the 
case  of  an  animal  but  lately  acquired.  For  instance, 
the  story  of  the  cattle  of  Hyperion  points  to  cult- 
selection  and  tabu.  The  epithet  "cow-eyed"  of 
Hera  (and,  possibly,  "owl-eyed"  of  Athena)  may 
witness  for  a  former  class  of  animal-headed  deities. 
In  the  case  of  the  horse,  the  evidence  is  clearer. 
The  horse  might  be  endowed  with  prophecy,  thus 
coming  into  very  close  relation  with  the  god  ;  sacri- 
fice of  horses  indicates  the  great  cult-import  of  this 
animal,  and,  as  has  been  mentioned,  the  horse  was 
not  used  as  a  work-animal,  but  was  employed  for 
higher  purposes.3 

Besides  animals,  trees  and  plants  came  into  the 
ceremonies  and  machinery  of  the  cult.  The  oak 
was  a  tree  sacred  to  Zeus,  and  a  prophetic  oak  grew 
at  Dodona.     Such  oaks  became  landmarks;   their 

1  See  p.  105  above  ;  Lippert,  I,  491  ff ;  cf.  543  ft. 

2  II,  300 ff ;  cf.  Friedreich,  473  ;  Lippert,  II,  403  ff. 

3  xi,  108-109;  xii,  262 ff;  cf.  Lippert,  I,  573 ff;  XIX,  404 ff; 
XXI,  132. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES        171 

acorns  were  fed  to  swine,  and  were  probably  an 
"  old "  food,  and  their  tender  leaves  were  used,  in 
absence  of  barley,  for  purposes  of  sacrifice.1  Wild 
fig-trees  were  likewise  landmarks  ;  poplars  and  wil- 
lows grew  in  Persephone's  grove  and  elsewhere  in 
holy  places.2  Other  sacred  trees  were  the  elm, 
planted  upon  graves,  the  plane-tree,  and  the  date- 
palm,  the  last  of  which  was  a  novelty  and  tended 
by  the  priests.  The  wild  olive  also  may  have  been 
a  sacred  tree.3 

As  in  the  case  of  the  animals,  so  in  that  of  the 
trees,  the  oldest  and  the  newest  were  sacred :  the 
oldest  because  once  they  furnished  food  and  shelter 
for  earlier  generations ;  the  newest  because  strange 
varieties  of  trees  were  generally  spread  abroad  by 
the  tenders  of  the  cult.  It  is  noticeable  that  the 
wild  species  of  trees  were  the  favourites  in  the 
cult;  while  the  absence  of  wheat  and  vines, 
the  earlier  gifts  of  the  Phoenicians,  is  significant. 

The  importance  of  the  "  word  "  has  been  touched 
upon  above  ;  also  the  distinction  between  right  and 
left,  or  lucky  and  unlucky.  In  number  also  there 
was  a  sort  of  fetichism.  The  regular  system  of 
counting  was  the  decimal,  but  there  were  certain 
round  numbers  which,  in  all  likelihood,  originated 
in  ceremonial  and  ritual  of  some  kind.  Nine  is  the 
most  common  round  number;  victims  in  sacrifice 

1  xiv,  327-328  ;  cf .  xix,  1 63 ;  V,  693  ;  VI,  237  ;  VII,  22  ;  xii,  357- 
358;  Lippert,  1,580  ff. 

2  VI,  433  ;  xii,  103  ;  432  ff ;  vi,  266 ;  291-292  ;  x,  510  ;  xvii,  208. 

3  VI,  419-420 ;  II,  307  ;  vi,  162-167  ;  xiii,  372. 


172  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

were  sometimes  counted  by  nines,  and  nine  was 
the  number  of  the  Muses.  Three  was  the  next 
most  important  round  number,  while  three  and 
nine  were  sometimes  used  together.1 

What  magic  the  Greeks  knew  was  chiefly  con- 
nected with  the  location  of  supernatural  power  in 
things ;  these  repositories  of  power  were,  of  course, 
another  species  of  fetich.  The  Greeks  knew  no  the- 
urgic  magic,  because  there  were  no  evil  spirits  of 
any  power  to  be  compelled,  and  the  gods  were  open 
only  to  propitiation.  Therefore  Homeric  magic  took 
the  form  of  direct  action  upon  a  thing's  nature.2 
Such  influence  was  generally  exercised  through 
some  fetich-like  object,  as  has  been  said,  and 
through  drugs.  The  staff  or  wand  was  an  important 
implement  of  magic.  By  the  touch  of  a  wand, 
Poseidon  restored  the  strength  of  the  two  Ajaxes. 
Hermes  always  carried  a  wand  as  compeller  of  the 
dead ;  with  it  he  could  make  the  senses  of  men 
sluggish  and  cause  them  to  sleep,  and  could  rouse 
them  again.  When  he  led  the  dead,  he  waved  this 
staff.  Athena,  with  the  stroke  of  a  wand,  changed 
Odysseus  into  an  old  man  with  ragged  clothes  and 
dim  eyes;  by  the  same  means  she  afterward  re- 
stored him  to  his  natural  form.3 

The  girdle  of  Aphrodite  was  a  sort  of  exuvial 

1  iii,  7-8;  xxiv,  60;  VIII,  169-170;  XXIV,  16;  454;  XVI, 
784-785. 

2  Lehmann,  I,  84;  100. 

8  XIII,  59  ff;  v,  47-48;  87;  xxiv,  5;  XXIV,  343-344;  xiii, 
429-433;  xiv,  172-176;  456  ff. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        173 

fetich,  conveying  all  the  charms  of  love;  the  tas- 
selled  JEgis,  on  the  other  hand,  inspired  terror  and 
dismay,  when  shaken  before  the  eyes  of  the  foe. 
Magic  sandals  carried  a  god  over  land  and  sea 
like  the  wind,  and  the  magic  veil  of  Ino  buoyed 
up  Odysseus  amidst  an  angry  sea.1  The  latter 
was  to  be  cast  back  into  the  waves  with  averted 
face. 

The  magic  of  Circe  was  a  complete  system.  Her 
house  was  surrounded  with  wolves  and  lions,  ren- 
dered tame  by  her  drugs,  which  fawned  upon  a 
newcomer  like  dogs.  To  change  men  to  animals 
she  mixed  a  certain  drug  with  their  food,  then 
struck  them  with  her  wand  and  ordered  them  to 
her  pens ;  thus  the  companions  of  Odysseus  be- 
came swine  and  ate  swine's  food,  though  their 
minds  were  intact.  The  story  runs  on,  telling  how 
Odysseus,  starting  out  to  rescue  his  men,  was  met 
by  Hermes,  who  described  to  him  the  methods  of 
Circe,  and  gave  him  a  "  good  herb  "  to  nullify  the 
effects  of  those  which  Circe  should  give  him.  This 
herb  was  dark  of  root,  with  a  flower  like  milk,  and 
was  called  by  the  gods  "  moly."  Here  is,  in  a 
modified  form,  a  contest  of  a  good  with  a  bad 
spirit.2  Odysseus  scrupulously  carried  out  the 
programme  recommended  by  Hermes,  threatening 
Circe  with  his  sword,  and  exacting  a  promise  that 
she  would  not  deprive  him  of  his  virility,  before 

1  XIV,  215  ff;  XV,  318  ft;  v,  44-46  ;  346-350. 

2  Cf .  Lehmann,  I,  84  f£. 


174  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

he  accepted  her  proffered  couch.  Circe  recognised 
at  once  a  god's  interference,  for  her  magic  herbs 
were  so  strong  that  no  man,  unaided,  could  have 
resisted  them.  Later,  in  reversing  the  spell  on 
the  comrades  of  Odysseus,  she  drove  them  from 
the  pens,  wand  in  hand,  anointed  their  heads  with 
"another  herb,"  and  at  once  the  bristles  fell  from 
their  limbs,  and  they  became  men  again,  taller  and 
more  beautiful  than  before.  The  gifts  of  Circe 
also  included  prophecy  and  a  species  of  necro- 
mancy which  Odysseus  learned  from  her,  and  which 
he  practised  in  the  gates  of  the  spirit-world.1 
,  One  other  spell  occurs  in  Homer,  where  a  flow 
/  of  blood  from  a  wound  was  stopped  by  a  magic 
song.  Besides  this,  we  find  the  transformation 
powers  of  Proteus,  suggestive  of  the  Orient,  and 
the  magical  Phaeacian  ships  endowed  with  intelli- 
gence.2 Gods  had  golden  servants  who  possessed 
mind  and  intelligence,  and  certain  transformations 
of  men  occur  which  were  probably  referable  to  the 
gods.  The  gods  could  in  all  cases  bewilder  the 
minds  of  men.3 

The  magic  of  Homer,  therefore,  was  connected 
y  with  the  gods,  demi-gods,  or  foreigners.     The  mir- 
acles of  the  gods  were  not  magic  to  the  Greeks  : 
what  one's  own   god   does   is   a    miracle;   what   a 
foreign  god  does  is  magic,  as  is  shown  in  the  story 

1  x,  210  ff ;  512  ff;  xi,  23  ff ;  cf.  Lehmann,  III,  5. 

2  xix,  457-458  ;  iv,  455  ff ;  viii,  557  ff. 

8  XVIII,  417-421;  IX,  563;  xix,   518  ff;   XII,   255;  XIII, 
435-438 ;  etc. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES        175 

of  Moses  and  the  Egyptian  magicians.1  The  for- 
eign ideas,  especially  if  they  were  quite  new, 
generally  appeared  under  the  patronage  of  a  sub- 
ordinate god;  foreign  divinities  seldom  came  at 
once  to  be  great  gods.  Thus  Proteus  and  Circe, 
both  immortal,  had  to  do  with  magic,  as  Hephaes- 
tus presided  over  smithery.  The  use  of  drugs  also 
seems  entirely  apart  from  genuine  Greek  custom, 
though  perhaps  they  were  employed  at  oracle- 
shrines.  It  appears  very  evident,  therefore,  that 
magic  was  not  a  genuine  Greek  product.  It  was 
one  of  the  most  attractive  and  easily  learned  of 
foreign  religious  practices  and  dexterities,  and  was 
probably  owed  largely  to  Chaldsea  through  Phoenicia. 
The  cult  had  direct  bearings  upon  the  social 
forms  of  its  time.  Its  sanction  extended  over 
custom  and  its  outgrowths,  thus  involving  what  was 
worked  out  in  the  line  of  property,  marriage,  govern- 
ment, law,  etc.  The  relation  of  the  religion  of  the 
time  to  these  social  forms  will  be  taken  up  in  its 
place.  There  were,  however,  several  ceremonies, 
religious  or  originally  religious,  which  dealt  in  a 
more  general  way  with  the  unification  of  individual 
and  tribal  elements.  Such  was  the  ceremony  of 
pledging  in  wine,  probably  a  dim  survival  of  the 
drinking  of  brotherhood  in  blood ;  the  ceremony 
might  be  accompanied  by  libation  and  good  wishes. 
Other  such  divinely  sanctioned  contracts  were  oaths ; 
to  take  an  oath  was  to  "  give  the  gods  "  to  each 

1  Lehmann,  I,  13. 


176  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

other,  for  they  were  the  best  guardians  of  agree- 
ments.1 The  form  of  oath  was  a  calling  of  the 
gods  to  witness ;  and  a  penalty  was  usually  attached 
to  perjury  in  the  form  of  a  curse,  pronounced  upon 
himself  by  the  one  taking  oath.  A  man  might 
swear  by  his  head,  his  son,  his  sceptre,  etc.2  This 
is,  then,  the  general  form  of  oath  between  man  and 
man ;  the  deities  ordinarily  called  upon  were  those 
of  the  spirit-world  who  punished  oath-breakers. 
The  gods,  in  their  own  swearing,  also  called  upon 
the  older  gods,  especially  upon  the  Titans,  and 
upon  the  river  Styx,  the  latter  being  the  greatest 
oath  possible  to  immortals.  As  the  Styx  was 
symbolic  of  death,  and  the  Titans  of  power  that 
had  passed  away,  probably  this  oath  was  one  which 
staked  both  power  and  immortality.  A  guest  might 
swear  by  his  host's  hearth  and  hospitality,  and  oaths 
were  sometimes  accompanied  with  libation.3 

The  most  important  social  agreement  calling  for 
oaths  was  the  conclusion  of  a  quarrel  or  war: 
a  reconciliation  or  a  truce.  Ceremonies  in  connec- 
tion with  such  oaths  had  some  features  peculiar  to 
themselves.  When  Agamemnon  and  Achilles  were 
reconciled,  and  the  former  swore  that  Briseis  had  not 
been  violated  while  in  his  possession,  the  ceremony 

1  IX,  224;  670-671 ;  XV,  86-88;  iii,  41;  iv,  59;  xviii,  111; 
121  ff;  151;  XXII,  254-255. 

2  xix,  288;  II,  259 £  ;  VII,  411-412;  I,  233  ff;  III,  300-301; 
XXIII,  582-585. 

8  XIV,  271-276;  cf.  XV,  36-41;  v,  184-187;  Naegelsbach,  40 ; 
xiv,  158-159  ;  xix,  288. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        177 

was  thought  important  enough  to  be  worthy  of 
a  special  victim,  a  boar.  Hairs  were  cut  from  the 
animal,  and  prayer  was  made  to  Zeus  by  the  son 
of  Atreus  ;  the  rest  "  kept  silence  fittingly,  listening 
to  the  king."  First,  he  called  Zeus,  Earth,  Sun,  and 
the  Erinyes  to  witness  that  what  he  had  said  was 
true,  and  then  cursed  himself  if  it  were  not  so. 
The  throat  of  the  victim  was  cut,  but  the  flesh  was 
not  burned ;  it  was  hurled  into  the  sea  "  as  food 
for  the  fish."  1  No  fire  is  mentioned ;  evidently  the 
boar  symbolised  in  some  degree  the  quarrel  whose  ill- 
feeling  was  now  to  be  cast  away  and  annihilated. 

Oath-ceremonies  sometimes  took  on  a  still  greater 
social  import.  The  "  sacred  oaths  "  of  truce  were 
of  this  variety.  In  the  oath-ceremonies  preceding 
the  great  truce  of  the  Iliad,  the  victims  were  to 
be  three  in  number :  from  the  Trojan  side,  two 
lambs,  one  light-coloured  male  for  the  Sun,  and 
one  dark  female  for  the  Earth.  The  Greeks  were 
to  furnish  one  for  Zeus.  The  truce  was  to  be 
concluded  by  Priam,  as  the  most  illustrious  of  the 
Trojans  in  age  and  honour ;  an  old  man  was  needed, 
in  so  solemn  an  affair,  who  could  perform  or  over- 
see the  ceremony  correctly,  for  "  the  minds  of  the 
youth  are  unstable,  but  the  old  man  from  his  wide 
experience  plans  the  best."  All  gathered  about  the 
kings  while  the  heralds  led  in  the  victims  and 
mixed  wine.  Water  was  poured  over  the  hands 
of  the  princes,  and  Agamemnon,  with  his  sacrificial 

1  XIX,  250-268. 
12 


178  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

knife,  cut  hairs  from  the  heads  of  the  victims, 
which  were  distributed  to  all  the  noblest  of  the 
Greeks  and  Trojans.  Agamemnon  then  prayed, 
lifting  up  his  hands,  to  Sun,  Earth,  and  Eivers, 
and  to  the  gods  of  the  spirit-world  who  were  wont 
to  punish  oath-breakers,  invoking  them  to  guard 
the  truce  of  which  they  were  witnesses,  and  to  fulfil 
the  conditions  of  the  ordeal-trial  about  to  take 
place.  The  throats  of  the  lambs  were  then  cut 
with  the  copper  knife  carried  always  by  the  king, 
wine  was  drawn  and  distributed,  and,  as  they 
poured  it  out  upon  the  earth,  the  members  of  both 
armies  cursed  the  truce-breaker  and  all  his  family : 
tc  May  their  brains  run  out  upon  the  ground  as 
does  this  wine."  The  victims,  or  at  least  two  of 
them,  were  then  carried  back  to  Ilion,  probably 
to  be  buried  there  after  the  manner  of  the  founda- 
tion-sacrifice.1 

The  ordeal-trial  which  follows  this  ceremony 
played  also  a  part  in  these  introductory  rites,  being 
mentioned  from  time  to  time,  but  the  ceremony  is 
in  its  intention  one  connected  with  oath-taking 
alone. 

These  oath- "sacrifices,"  taken  as  a  whole,  seem 
to  have  been  really  no  more  than  prayers  accom- 
panied by  the  killing  of  a  victim  to  guard  the  sanc- 
tity of  the  agreement.  Probably  such  a  victim  was 
originally  a  substitute  for  a  human  victim  whose 
disembodied  soul,  it  was  believed,  stood  guard  over 

1  III,  260-313  (298-301  quoted). 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        179 

this  kind  of  social  undertaking.1  Symbolically  all 
were  made  participants  of  the  ceremony,  the  chiefs 
standing  for  the  whole  people ;  and  the  use  of  the 
wine  on  this  occasion  recalls  distinctly  the  drinking 
of  brotherhood,  first  in  blood,  and  then  in  substi- 
tutes for  it.2  The  ceremony  was  at  any  rate  some- 
thing which  witnesses  the  decay  of  the  narrow 
bond  of  blood-kinship  and  the  development  of  a 
wider  toleration  of  the  outside  world.  The  suppli- 
cation of  the  older  gods  in  oath-taking  is  noticeable ; 
also  the  use  of  the  smaller  quadrupeds  as  victims. 

Besides  the  culture-plants  and  animals,  the  cult 
had  given  to  early  Greece  certain  knowledge  and 
pseudo-knowledge.  In  the  treatment  of  wounds 
and  diseases  these  are  strangely  mingled.  Wounds, 
that  is,  hurts  that  could  be  seen,  were  as  a  rule 
treated  sensibly.  "  From  many  places  in  the  Iliad 
it  appears  that  the  Greeks  before  Ilion  had  physi- 
cians who,  in  all  cases  of  wounds,  went  to  work 
quite  rationally,  in  that  they  washed  the  wounds 
and  bound  them  with  healing  herbs."3  Arrow- 
wounds  seem  to  have  demanded  this  care  most  of 
all.  The  arrow  was  drawn  or  cut  out,  and  the  wound 
sucked  or  washed,  after  which  soothing  herbs  were 
applied.4  Of  course  the  gods  could  cure  any  wound 
at  once,  though  they  had  to  have  the  heavenly  physi- 

1  Sumner,  U.  L.  2  Lippert,  II,  333  ff ;  338. 

8  Lehmann,  I,  73.  Considerable  knowledge  of  anatomy  is  shown 

in  the  "  war-books."  See  Tylor,  330. 

4  IV,  190ff;  V,  112 ff;"  XI,  398;  844-848;  XIII,  599-600; 
XV,  394. 


180  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

cian  cure  their  own  ;  and  thunderbolt-wounds,  it  is 
said,  required  over  ten  years  to  heal.1  Without 
divine  aid,  then,  wounds  were  cured  by  rational 
means,  except  in  one  case  mentioned  where  a  spell 
was  sung  over  a  wound  to  stop  the  flow  of  blood ; 
and  even  in  this  case  the  wounded  member  was 
bound,  —  all  was  not  trusted  to  the  charm.  Wine 
was  taken  as  a, stimulant  after  being  wounded.2 

But  in  the  case  of  sickness,  where  no  external 
cause  was  apparent,  there  was  no  thought  of  treat- 
ment. Here,  if  anywhere,  an  evil  spirit  was  at 
work  ;  yet,  in  general,  these  sicknesses  were  regarded 
as  ills  sent  by  the  gods,  to  be  averted  by  prayer,  or 
they  were  coincident  with  the  appearance  of  certain 
stars.3  Especially  is  this  the  case  of  the  plague  in 
the  Greek  army ;  no  treatment  was  possible  or 
thought  of.  The  question  was,  "How  have  we 
sinned  against  Apollo  ? "  The  real  healers  of  the 
plague  were  the  prophet  who  disclosed  the  sin,  and 
the  appeased  priest  who  prayed  for  its  removal. 
The  attack  was  due  to  arrows  of  the  enraged  god, 
and  the  malady  stopped  short  when  that  god  had 
been  propitiated.4 

Sulphur  was  probably  employed  only  in  ceremo- 
nial purification.6  Water  was  used  freely  in  all 
cases,  ceremonial  or  other,  for  the  Homeric  Greeks 

1  V,  401-402;  899  ff;  XVI,  528  ff ;  VIII,  404-405. 

2  xix,  456-460;  XIV,  5  ;  cf.  Friedreich,  170. 

3  v,  395-396;  ix,  411-412;  cf.  520-525;  xi,  200-201;  XXII, 
26-31. 

4  I,  37  £E.  5  xxii,  481  fE ;  cf .  XVI,  228. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND    USAGES        181 

were    extremely  cleanly,  as  compared  with   many 
other  peoples  in  a  similar  stage  of  civilisation. 

Even  if  their  field  was  limited,  the  leeches  were 
an  honoured  class,  "  for  a  man  who  heals  is  equiva- 
lent to  many  others."1  The  Greek  army  before 
Ilion  possessed  two  physicians,  both  from  Thessaly, 
and  sons  of  the  famous  Asklepios.  They  com- 
manded contingents,  and  were  not  different  from 
other  men  except  that  they  knew  and  possessed  the 
herbs  which  would  quell  pain.2  It  appears  that  the 
profession,  as  far  as  it  was  one,  was  hereditary ;  also 
the  art  was  taught  by  Chiron  to  Achilles,  and  in 
turn  Achilles  taught  Patroclus.  The  herbs  used 
may  have  been  dried;  they  were  crushed  in  the 
hand  before  being  applied  and  the  application  was 
called  "  the  bitter  (or  sharp)  root."  3  The  profession 
was,  therefore,  a  simple  one,  little  differentiated,  but 
very  valuable  to  the  men  of  those  times,  whose  ail- 
ments were  commonly  wounds.  It  is  noticeable 
that  drugs  came  almost  entirely  from  Egypt  or  from 
possible  Phoenician  colonies.4  The  land  of  Egypt 
was  blessed  with  many  physicians ;  in  fact,  every 
man  was  one,  according  to  the  admiring  Homer. 
Such  skill  was  regarded  as  superhuman,  for  all 
Egyptians  were  "  of  the  race  of  Paieon."  5 

None  of  Homer's  surgeons  were  priests ;  nor  were 

1  XI,  514-515. 

2  II,  732;  IV,  200-202;  cf.  XI,  518;   XIII,  213;   XVI,  28. 

3  XI,  846. 

*  XI,  739-741  ;  iv,  229-232;  cf.  i,  260  ff;  x,  276. 
5  iv,  229-232. 


182  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

his  bards.  Poetry  and  music  went  together  in  those 
days,  and  between  poet  and  singer  there  was  really 
no  distinction.  Hymns  in  honour  of  the  gods  and 
about  them  form  all  the  evidence  in  Homer  that 
poetry  took  its  origin  in  the  service  of  the  gods. 
The  bard,  like  the  priest,  was  inspired  or  possessed 
by  the  god  who  spoke  through  him.1  Songs  were 
of  various  kinds:  marriage  and  festival  hymns,2 
dirges,3  hymns  of  victory  with  chorus,4  hymns  of 
praise,5  all  rather  short,  and  the  songs  of  the  "deeds 
of  men,"  which  were  narratives  of  legend  or  history, 
and  seem  in  some  cases  to  have  constituted  an 
historical  cycle,  certain  parts  of  which  could  be 
given  at  request,  and  which  was  ever  in  the  process 
of  re-forming  and  augmenting  itself  as  other  stirring 
events  arose.6  These  songs  were  accompanied  by 
simple  stringed  instruments  of  various  kinds ;  pipes 
also  are  mentioned.7 

Bards  themselves  were  reverenced  as  loved  by  the 
gods ;  they  were  regarded  as  important  members  of 
society   along    with    the    physician,   prophet,   and 

1  XVIII,  569-572;  viii,  266  ff ;  1, 1  ;  i,  1 ;  viii,  63-64;  479-481; 
xxii,  347-348. 

2  I,  603-604;  XVIII,  493-495  ;  XXIV,  62-63  ;  iv,  17-18  ;  xvii, 
270-271. 

3  XXIV,  725  ff;  xxiv,  60-62. 

4  XXII,  391  ff;  chorus, 393-394. 

5  I,  472-473. 

6  IX,  189  ;  i,  326-327  ;  351-352;  viii,  73  ;  VI,  358;  viii,  499  ff; 
xxiv,  197-198;  Jebb,  75-76. 

'  III,  54  ;  i,  153-155  ;  xxi,  406-408  ;  X,  13  ;  XVIII,  219;  493- 
495  ;  526. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        183 

builder.1  In  that  stage  of  society,  where  men  were 
isolated  and  thrown  back  upon  themselves  to  so 
great  an  extent,  the  bard  who  diverted  their  minds 
or  brought  them  news  of  the  outside  world,  could 
not  fail  of  popularity.  A  man  would  everlastingly 
regret  the  slaying  of  a  bard  ;  bards  were  retained  in 
very  rich  houses,  especially  in  those  regions  where 
one  would  expect  Eastern  influence.  They  were  a 
great  luxury,  and  the  attention  accorded  to  their 
song  ranked  as  the  closest.2  A  great  many  of  these 
singers  or  poets  seem  to  have  come  from  the  North 
originally,  and  they  were  in  demand  and  honour  on 
all  occasions,  even  if  they  were  dependents,  as  they 
seem  generally  to  have  been.3  Minstrels  were  a 
skilled  class,  and  but  few  who  were  not  specialists 
could  handle  the  lyre  and  sing ;  Achilles  is  men- 
tioned as  singing  *  the  deeds  of  men,"  but  it  is 
supposable  that  Chiron  taught  him  this,  as  well 
as  the  use  of  medicinal  herbs.  Music  and  song 
were  also  connected  with  dancing,  in  ceremonies 
such  as  that  of  the  harvest-home.4 

This  is  the  evidence  of  Homer  as  to  his  own  pro- 
fession. What  his  bards  did  and  were,  he  did  and 
was,  but  on  a  grander  scale ;  he  too  was  the  mouth- 
piece of  the  Muses.  Homer  was,  to  his  own  and 
later  times,  history,  geography,  genealogy,  religion, 

1  xvii,  384-385  ;  cf.  Hi,  267  ff. 

2  xxii,  345-348;  i,  1 53  ff ;  viii,  47  ff  ;  xvii,  518-520. 

•  Seymour,  note  to  II,  595  ;  XVIII,  569-572  ;  604-606  ;  i,  336  ff  ; 
370-371  ;  iv,  17-18  ;  viii,  47  ff. 

4  IX,  189  ;  XVI,  182-183;  XVIII,  569-572  ;  604-606. 


184  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

morals,  politics,  —  in  short,  Homer  was  universal  in 
his  influence  upon  the  course  of  Greek  civilisation.1 
This  would  not  perhaps  be  so  wonderful  in  a 
congeries  of  disconnected  songs ;  Homer's  poems 
beside  this  are  great  epics,  having  dignity  of  theme, 
dignity,  continuity,  and  completeness  of  treatment ; 
they  are  as  refined  a  piece  of  literature  as  the  world 
has  ever  seen.  They  deal  universally  with  the 
mind  and  heart,  thoughts  and  passions,  joy  and 
pain  of  men ;  there  are  few  details  indeed  of  the  life 
of  his  times  that  Homer  did  not  know.  And  in 
addition  to  all  this,  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey  exhibit 
the  simplicity  of  the  highest  and  most  perfect  art.2 
Before  the  contrast  between  these  consummate 
products  and  the  civilisation  whence  they  sprung, 
however  relatively  advanced  that  might  have  been, 
the  mind  stands  amazed.  It  will  perhaps  never  be 
known  what  factors  stimulated  the  growth  of  such 
high  products  of  the  mind  and  heart ;  doubtless  the 
splendid  Greek  mind  itself,  wherever  that  originated, 
and  perhaps  a  successful  war  and  consequent 
national  impulse,  lay  somewhere  at  the  root  of  this 
growth.  But  there  was  one  negatively  favourable 
condition  of  the  greatest  moment ;  the  development 
of  the   Iliad   and   Odyssey  was   not  dwarfed  and 

i  I,  1;  i,  1;  IT,  761;  XI,  218  ff ;  XVI,  112;  Jebb,  ch.  III. 
Homer,  for  his  age  and  time,  was  singularly  free  from  sacerdotal 
and  military  bias.  See  Amer.  Jour,  of  Sociology,  VI,  2,  p.  267  ff  ; 
Tylor  (376-379)  has  made  an  admirable  analysis  of  the  scientific 
value  of  Homer's  evidence  as  to  the  life  of  his  time. 

2  Cf.  M.  Arnold,  Essays  in  Criticism  (On  Translating  Homer). 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        185 

narrowed  and  deformed  by  a  restrictive  and  despotic 
cult.  The  free  play  of  initiative,  the  opening  of 
many  avenues  for  empiric  effort,  the  chance  to  try 
and  fail  and  try  anew ;  these  were  the  privileges 
of  Greek  art,  freed  as  it  was  from  a  domineering 
and  all  conventionalising  priesthood.  Thus  poetry 
could  outgrow  its  narrow  origin  and  penetrate 
further  and  further  into  human  life ;  at  a  time  of 
such  national  prosperity  and  widening  of  horizons, 
incitement  was  needed  less  than  freedom  from 
restraint. 

A  part  of  the  pseudo-knowledge  of  Homer's  time 
was  developed  in  the  form  of  cosmology.  The 
earth,  it  was  thought,  rested  upon  the  seas,  so  that 
Poseidon  was  the  Earth-sustainer,  and,  in  the  case  of 
seismic  movements,  the  Earth-shaker.1  The  heaven, 
called  "  copper  "  and  "  iron  "  at  times,  was  sustained 
upon  long  pillars  in  charge  of  the  god  Atlas.2 
Around  the  earth  flowed  the  river  Ocean,  broad  and 
deep,  into  which  the  sun  sank  at  night.3  Far  in 
the  West,  across  the  Ocean -stream,  was  the  gate  of 
ithe  spirit-world,  leading  beneath  the  earth.  Below 
the  abode  of  Hades  was  Tartarus,  the  home  of  the 
former  gods,  dark  and  gloomy,  fitted  with  iron 
gates,  as  far  beneath   the  home  of   Hades  as   the 

aven  was  above  the  earth.4      Olympus  was  the 


h* 


1  VII,  445 ;  455 ;  IX,  183  ;  i,  68. 

2  V,  504;  XVII,  425  ;  iii,  2  ;  xr,  329  ;  xvii,  565 ;  i,  52-54. 
8  XVIII,  607-608  ;   VIII,  485  ;   XVIII,  240 ;  XIX,  1-2  ;  XXI, 

195  ff. 

4  VIII,  13-16  ;  478-481  ;  XIV,  204. 


186  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

mountain  upon  which  the  gods  gathered  or  dwelt ;  it 
was  not  the  sky,  but  much  lower  than  it,  and  not 
visited  by  the  rain  and  snow  which  distressed 
men.1 

From  what  has  been  said  above  concerning  the 
Chaldsean  and  Egyptian  notions  on  cosmology,  it 
seems  very  likely  that  the  Greeks  borrowed  a 
number  of  these  ideas.2  Such  notions  were  easy 
to  acquire,  coming  as  they  did  from  the  great 
Phoenician  travellers,  whose  knowledge  of  the  earth 
was  believed  to  be  so  extensive  and  whose  stories 
were  so  wonderful.  With  Phoenicians  and  their 
tales  are  probably  to  be  associated  the  monsters  of 
Homer:  the  Chimsera,  a  composite  of  lion,  serpent, 
and  goat,  slain  by  the  hero  Bellerophon,  the  Gorgon's 
head,  Scylla  and  Charybdis,  the  Sirens,  etc.,3  as  well 
as  the  savage  tribes  so  vaguely  located  about  the 
world. 

v  True  Greek  religion  of  Homer's  time  was,  like  all 
religions,  an  effort  to  escape  from  or  lighten  the 
burdens  of  life,  —  a  phase  of  the  struggle  for  self- 
maintenance.  Starting  from  the  belief  in  superior 
powers  against  which  resistance  was  useless,  this 
whole  system  of  placation  was  worked  out  in  its 
details.  Given  the  premises,  the  results  were  en- 
tirely logical.  There  was  little  more  than  this  in 
all  the  ceremonies  of  Homeric  religion.    Morals  were 

1  XV,  192-193  ;  vi,  42-46 ;  xi,  315-316. 

2  Cf.  De  Greef,  Soc,  326. 

3  VI,  178-182;  VIII,  349  ;  XI,  36;  xi,  634-635;  xii,  89ffJ 
167  ff;   235  ff. 


RELIGIOUS  IDEAS  AND   USAGES        187 

quite  other  than  religious  in  origin ;  they  were  social 
forms  which  from  time  to  time  came  under  the  strong 
sanctions  of  the  cult  and  religion.1  Eeligion  was 
ritualistic  and  formal;  no 'feeling  was  necessary  ex- 
cept a  fear  which  would  lead  to  the  prompt  dis- 
charge of  cult-obligations.  Sin  was  but  the  nega- 
tion of  fear  and  respect  for  the  gods,  which  found 
its  expression  in  disobedience  and  neglect.2  There 
was  no  remorse  over  sin,  and  no  regret  except  in 
the  fact  that  evil  consequences  had  been  borne 
which  could  have  been  averted.  The  heavy  burden 
of  the  cult  was  supported,  because  it  was  better  to 
endure  a  lesser  evil  constantly  than  to  be  ever 
exposed  to  the  chance  of  utter  loss  and  ruin. 

These  fundamental  ideas  of  the  Homeric  religious 
system  were  subject  to  but  few  modifications.  The 
most  elevated  of.  these  rationalistic  developments 
was  the  conception '  of  Fate,  inexorable,  and  con- 
sequently to  be  born  with  manful  Kesignation. 
After  all  had  been  done  to  insure  one's  safety 
against  mischance,  it  would  yet  inevitably  come  in 
the  shape  of  death  or  misery.  It  is  the  stout- 
heartedness with  which  such  evil  was  met  that  is 
one  of  the  noblest  legacies  of  Homer  to  later  and 
more  shrinking  ages.  Greek  comfort  was  cold  and 
afforded  no  consoling  promises  of  future  reparation 

1  Lippert,  I,  28  ;  Letourneau,  Morale,  446  ff ;  De  Greef,  Soc, 
177  fE;  Gumplowicz,  Soc,  IV,  art.  8;  Rassk.,  137-154;  Starcke, 
Sarav.,  43-66. 

•      2Cf.    xiii,   200-202;    XXIII,    589  ff;    XXIV,    157-158;    569- 
570 ;  i,  32  ff  ;  iv,   380  ff  ;  xiii,  213-214 ;  xiv,  405-406. 


188  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

for  present  pain  and  suffering.  It  merely  urged 
one  to  submit  himself  to  the  great  processes  of 
Nature  and,  with  the  dignity  of  a  man,  to  endure. 
"  Bear  up,  my  soul !  ere  this  thou  hast  endured  more 
grievous  ill." 1 

!xx,  18;  cf.  IV,  320-321;  V,  382  ff ;  XXIV,   49;    550-551; 
i,  354-355  ;  v,  221-224  ;  vi,  190. 


CHAPTEK  IV 
PROPERTY 

IN"  dealing  with  the  industrial  organisation  and 
with  religion,  one  is  brought  into  contact  with 
the  direct  action  and  reaction  between  man  and  his 
real  or  imaginary  environment;  the  struggle  for 
self-maintenance  is,  as  it  were,  in  its  lowest  terms. 
The  development  of  industry  means  the  subjugation 
of  physical  environment,  while  that  of  religion  has 
to  do  with  insurance  against  the  aleatory  element 
of  life,  personified  in  the  higher  powers.  It  is 
primarily  upon  the  economic  or  industrial  basis  of 
society  that  those  secondary  social  structures  are 
founded,  which  deal  not  so  much  with  nature  itself, 
as  with  the  products  and  developments  of  the  eco- 
nomic system  upon  which  they  depend.  These  sec- 
ondary social  forms  are  property,  marriage,  morals, 
government,  etc.  Religion  moulds  these  forms  chiefly 
in  its  function  of  sanction  of  the  mores.  The  prop- 
erty-system—  a  complex  of  ideas  and  regulations  as 
to  how  accumulated  power  in  the  struggle  for  self- 
maintenance  is  to  be  distributed^ is  perhaps  the 
most  direct  outgrowth  of  the  economic  organisation  ; 
and  yet  its  form  is  due  to  a  multiplicity  of  causes. 
While   property-ideas    affect   ideas  of   government, 


190  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

forms  of  marriage,  etc.,  they  are  in  turn  subject  to 
reciprocal  modification.1  Therefore,  in  treating 
Homeric  ideas  about  property,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  anticipate  now  and  then  what  is  later  to  be  said 
of  the  state,  classes,  and  justice. 

In  general,  what  a  man  could  get  and  hold  was 
his  property;  the  strong  hand  was  the  one  great 
guarantee  in  an  age  of  violence.  Booty-warfare  was 
the  chief  method  of  acquiring  treasure  in  metals, 
live-stock,  and  other  forms  of  wealth,  and  only 
vigilance  in  defence  preserved  what  had  been 
gained.  The  very  old  and  the  very  young,  unless 
surrounded  by  supporters,  found  great  difficulty 
in  preserving  the  integrity  of  their  possessions. 
An  infringement  of  a  property-right  was  a  matter 
whose  settlement  lay  almost  entirely  between  man 
and  man,  unless  some  form  of  greater  social  import 
had  been  violated.2 

Movable  property  in  Homer  may  be  dismissed 
with  a  few  words.  From  what  has  been  said  con- 
cerning cattle-raising  and  commerce,  we  know  that 
Homeric  wealth  consisted  largely  in  the  possession 
of  live-stock  or  of  metals  and  metallic  products. 
Important  men  had  large  flocks  and  herds  and  a 
treasure  of  metal  in  various  forms ;  with  these 
and  with  grain  they  procured  what  the  foreigner 
had  to  sell,  and  among  other  wares,  slaves. 

Property  in  persons,  to  the  Homeric  Greek,  was  as 

1  Cf.  Letourneau,  Prop.,  22-23. 
■  See  pp.  288  ff  below. 


PROPERTY  191 

rational  as  property  in  things ;  and,  in  so  far  as  he 
was  able,  each  householder  provided  himself  with 
slaves.  Slaves  in  Greece  and  among  the  Greeks 
were  invariably  from  foreign  parts  and  were  mostly 
women  and  children.  Men  were  spared  and  taken 
prisoners  in  war,  not  for  the  sake  of  their  services 
as  workers,  but  for  their  ransom  or  for  their  price 
when  sold  to  foreigners..  The  patriarchate,  exist- 
ing in  Greece  under  conditions  unfavourable  to  its 
stability,  could  not  trust  itself  to  rob  numbers  of 
grown  men  of  their  will  and  hold  them  to  obedi- 
ence. Male  slaves  were  bought  when  young  and 
trained  to  acquiescence  and  fidelity ; l  that  no  up- 
rising of  slaves  is  chronicled  during  the  Trojan 
war  and  the  long  absence  of  the  chieftains,  wit- 
nesses to  the  fact  that  male  slaves  were  few  and 
faithful.2 

The  system  of  slaveholding  was  a  kindly  one, 
where  master  and  man  were  brought  closely  to- 
gether, even  at  the  same  table  ;  and  where  the  female 
slaves  spun  and  wove  under  the  direct  supervision 
and  actual  example  of  the  mistress  of  the  house. 
None  the  less  the  slave  was  mere  property;  there 
was  no  avenger  of  his  blood,  and  therefore  the  mas- 
ter held  undisputed  power  of  life  and  death.  That 
the  slave,  even  though  he  might  become  his  master's 
friend  and  hold  property  under  his  master's  will, 
was  merely  a  chattel  at  the  last  analysis,  is  proved 

1  IX,  593-594  ;  xv,  403  ff ;  cf.  Lippert,  II,  116. 
«  Cf.  xiv,  3  ff  :  524  ff. 


192  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

by  the  infliction  of  terrible  punishments  and  death 
for  unfaithfulness.1 

The  question  as  to  property  in  land,  in  Homer,  is 
one  which  has  been  answered  in  opposite  ways  ; 
some  writers  are  convinced  that  communal  land- 
tenure  and  the  "  open-field "  system  are  clearly 
indicated,2  while  others  regard  such  views  as  the 
result  of  an  attempt  to  apply  universally  certain 
fixed  rules  of  property-development.3  The  latter  con- 
tention has  been  rendered  entirely  justifiable  by  those 
who  have  attempted,  in  the  ardour  of  discovery  and 
enthusiasm,  to  fit  all  the  facts  to  the  Procrustean  bed 
of  systematic  classification.  It  is  useless  to  try  to 
force  a  single  meaning  into  a  passage  susceptible  of 
various  interpretations  ;  and  unfortunately,  the  pas- 
sages upon  which  opinions  diverge  most  are  isolated 
ones,  occurring  in  similes  and  fragmentary  descrip- 
tions.4 Under  such  conditions  the  formulation  of 
theories  or  the  attempt  rigorously  to  classify,  can  be 
little  more  than  an  intellectual  exercise.  Apparently 
the  best  service  of  the  investigator  is  to  set  down 
the  evidence  as  it  exists  ;  it  will  then  be  found 
that  the  picture  of  the  Homeric  system  of  prop- 
erty-holding   in    land    is    consistent    and   natural 

1  xxiv,  394  ff ;  VI,  490  ff ;  etc. ;  xxii,  465-477. 

2  Cf.  Leaf,  176;  366;  Letourneau,  Prop.,  240-244;  Ridgeway 
also  (p.  678)  seems  to  stand  for  the  "primitive,  common-field 
system." 

8  Poehlmann,  Fg.  bei  Hm,  105  ff. 

*  XI,  67  ff;  XII,  421  ff;  XVIII,  541  ff ;  XXI,  405;  XXII, 
489. 


PROPERTY  193 

enough,  even  though  it  cannot  he  forced  into  any 
fixed  category. 

Plots  of  plough-land,  we  find,  were  marked  off  by 
boundary-stones,  and  these  boundaries  were  the  sub- 
jects of  hot  disputes.  In  one  case,  two  men  are 
represented  as  quarrelling  over  their  boundaries, 
measuring-rods  in  hand,  each  striving  for  an  equal 
share  in  a  small  strip.1  They  are  said  to  be  in 
the  "  common  plough-land,"  whatever  that  may  be. 
Several  measures  of  land  are  used  which  might  re- 
mind one  of  communal  conditions.2  This  is  about 
all  the  evidence  available  from  the  common  life 
of  the  people  ;  it  is  only  through  a  study  of  the 
property  of  the  gods  and  kings  that  one  can  arrive 
at  a  more  definite  view  of  property-holding  in 
Homer's  time. 

It  has  been  mentioned  that  there  was  set  apart 
for  the  god  a  piece  of  land  about  the  temple,  called 
a  temenos ;  3  this,  being  under  the  tabu,  was  one 
of  the  first  forms  of  private  property.  In  Homer 
the  temenos  is  also  a  royal  possession  ;  4  the  king  and 
the  god  were  the  first  holders  of  private  property  in 

1  XII,  421-423. 

2  For  instance,  the  "mules*  range"  (X,  351 ;  viii,  124)  or  fur 
row's  length  ("pelethron  ") ;  the  "  point  at  which  the  team,  having 
fiuished  the  furrow,  turns  "  (Autenreith,  242  ;  sub  "ouron  ") ;  also 
the  "  gyon "  (from  word  for  the  "  curved  piece  of  wood  on  a 
plough"),  the  "tetragyon"  (xviii,  374)  being  "what  a  strong 
ploughman  with  strong  oxen  can  do  in  a  day."  Buchholz,  II,  pt. 
1,  96. 

8  From  temnein  =  to  cut. 

*  XII,  313-314;  vi,  293-294;  xi,  185;  cf.  XXI,  36;  Leaf,  222. 
13 


194  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

land,  and  there  are  no  clear  cases  of  the  temenos  be- 
ing connected  with  other  possessors  than  these.  This 
piece  of  ground  was  regularly  given  to  the  king 
by  the  people ;  where  it  was  given  by  them  to  an- 
other, it  conveyed  royalty  with  it,  or  was  a  symbol 
of  the  bestowal  of  royal  power.  Thus,  Bellerophon 
won  great  glory  among  the  Lycians;  he  married 
the  king's  daughter,  received  half  the  honour  of  the 
kingship,  and  a  fine  temenos.  Meleager  was  besought 
to  defend  Caledon,  and  the  citizens  empowered  him 
to  choose  a  temenos  from  the  richest  land  they  pos- 
sessed ;  iEneas  for  defending  Ilion  might  expect 
a  temenos  from  the  Trojans.  Thus,  the  temenos 
was  a  public  gift  for  protection,  and  the  givers  com- 
mended their  lives  and  property  to  its  possessor. 
This  land  then  descended  from  father  to  son  in  the 
royal  family.1 

If  this  tract  of  land  was  to  advantage  the  king  at 
all,  he  must  have  at  his  disposal  certain  working- 
forces.  Male  slaves  were  uncommon,  and  wage- 
earners  few ;  yet  in  the  king's  field  there  were 
many  ploughmen  and  harvesters,  and  it  was  never 
neglected.  It  seems  very  likely  that  the  people 
owed  certain  services  to  the  protecting  lord. 

In  one  place  in  Homer  there  is  a  picture  of  plough- 
ing in  a  "  triply-ploughed  "  field ;  many  ploughmen 
drove  their  teams  back  and  forth,  and  were  met  at  the 
furrow's  end  by  an  overseer  who  gave  to  each  a  cup  of 
sweet  wine  ;  thus  they  hastened  to  reach  the  furrow's 

1  VI,  194-195;  IX,  577-580;  XX,  184-185;  xi,  184-186. 


PROPERTY  195 

end.1  There  is  another  picture  of  the  temenos,  deep 
with  grain.  Mowers  plied  their  sickles,  binders  fol- 
lowed, and  boys  gleaned  close  behind.  Among  the 
workers  stood  the  king,  bearing  the  symbol  of  his 
office  ;  while  heralds,  the  king's  special  functionaries,2 
slew  an  ox  under  an  oak-tree,  and  women  prepared  a 
feast  for  the  labourers.  Such  scenes,  with  a  like  one 
occurring  in  the  vintage-time,3  remind  one  of 
mediaeval  customs  ;  but,  though  there  is  nothing  to 
prove  that  they  do  not  refer  to  communal  crop- 
gathering,  they  are  most  simply  explained  as  de- 
scriptions of  the  king's  demesne  and  prerogatives. 
The  king's  reciprocal  duties  included  an  ever-open 
hospitality.4 

Other  miscellaneous  facts  concerning  the  king's 
landed  possessions  are  the  following :  they  were 
enclosed  by  a  hedge  or  some  similar  barrier,5  which 
is  not  often  the  case  elsewhere  ;  a  king  might  acquire 
land  of  his  own,  in  no  way  connected  with  public 
gift,  as  Laertes  had  a  farm  "  far  from  the  town," 
which  he  had  come  to  possess  through  his  own 
exertions.  The  temenos  went  to  Odysseus  when  his 
father  retired  from  the  rule,  and  the  latter  lived 
alone  upon  his  own  farm.  Odysseus,  in  his  absence, 
turned  over  his  estate  to  a  faithful  follower,  who 
was  to  guard  it  under  the  aged  father's  supervision ; 

1  XVIII,  541-547. 

2  See  p.  274  below. 

3  XVIII,  550-560  ;  561-572 ;  cf.  XI,  67-69. 

4  IX,  73;  xi,  184-186. 

5  XVIII,  564  ;  vii,  112  ff;  xxiv,  224  ;  cf.  XT,  558  ff. 


196  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

but  during  the  minority  of  Telemachus  it  was  wasted 
lawlessly.1  An  old  king  had  ever  to  fear  the  en- 
croachments of  his  neighbours,  and  faithfulness  to  an 
absent  ruler  might  be  imputed  to  venal  motives.2 
A  king  appears  to  have  held  his  temenos  and  office 
in  undisputed  right  as  long  as  he  was  really  the 
most  powerful  man  in  the  state ;  when  he  was 
no  longer  that,  revolution  became  in  a  measure 
justified. 

Doubtless  the  common  people  held  their  houses 
and  the  land  immediately  surrounding  them  in 
private  possession,  the  quasi-feudal  system  extending 
merely  to  the  agricultural  operations  and  lands. 
Thus,  followers  of  Odysseus  had  an  oikos ;  even 
the  slave  might  have  house  and  wife  and  hold  other 
slaves  under  the  master  or  by  his  gift.3 

The  customs  as  to  inheritance  throw  some  light 
upon  conditions  of  property-holding.  Nowhere  is 
it  made  clearer  that  the  age  was  one  of  violence 
than  in  what  is  said  concerning  inheritance.  The 
danger  to  the  old  man  who  no  longer  possessed  the 
"strong  hand"  has  been  mentioned;  and  the  story 
of  Telemachus  witnesses  to  the  difficulties  of  a 
young  king's  son  in  establishing  his  rights.     The 

1  i,  189-193;  xxiv,  206-207;  cf.  Leaf,  176;  ii,  226-227;  312  ff. 
There  seems  to  be  no  ground  whatever  for  Lippert's  view  (I,  240) 
concerning  the  retirement  of  old  Laertes  to  the  "winter-house." 
This  is  merely  a  striking  example  of  neglect  of  context, —  a  fault 
into  which  even  experienced  scientists,  working  in  so  broad  a  field, 
are  likely  to  fall. 

2  XXIV,  483-489;  xi,  494-503;  ii,  186. 
8  xiv,  62-67  ;  449-452;  xxi,  213-216. 


PROPERTY  197 

boundary-stones  might  be  torn  up  from  an  orphan's 
fields;  there  is  nothing  however  to  indicate  that 
this  refers  to  his  share  of  the  common  field.1 

Inheritance  among  the  common  people  is.  not 
mentioned.  Nowhere  was  primogeniture  estab-; 
lished,  though  the  oldest  son  enjoyed  a  pre-eminence 
that  points  toward  the  system.  Property  was 
divided  by  lot  among  the  legitimate  children ;  Zeus, 
Poseidon,  and  Hades  thus  partitioned  the  universe, 
though  this  latter  case  perhaps  comes  under  political 
succession.2  The  story  of  Telemachus,  who  was, 
unfortunately  for  a  good  view  of  inheritance- 
customs,  an  only  son,  may  cast  more  light  upon  the 
system  of  property-holding  and  the  relation  of  the 
king  to  it. 

Telemachus  was  left  a  mere  infant  when  his 
father  departed  on  the  Trojan  Expedition,  the 
estate  being  in  charge  of  a  comes  of  Odysseus 
under  the  direction  of  the  wife  and  aged  father. 
At  the  opening  of  the  Odyssey,  Telemachus  must  be 
conceived  of  as  "just  coming  of  age."  For  four 
years  the  house  had  been  infested  by  a  host  of 
suitors  for  his  mother's  hand,  who  paid  no  atten- 
tion to  the  boy,  but,  seemingly  under  the  pretext 
of  making  use  of  the  royal  hospitality,  laid  waste 
the  estate  and  its  products.  In  the  course  of  the 
Odyssey  the  boy  grows  from  tearful  protest  to  the 
tearless  wrath   of  a  man  who  will  rule  his  own; 

1  XXII,  489  ;  cf.  Leaf,  366. 

2  xiv,  208-210;  XV,  187  ff;  cf.  XIII,  354-355. 


198  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

nevertheless,  because  he  had  no  brothers  or  other 
supporters,1  because  the  strong  hand,  which  the 
people  feared  and  upheld,  was  absent,  he  can  do 
little  but  threaten.  "  Many  woes  has  the  son  of  an 
absent  father  in  his  halls — one  to  whom  there  are 
given  no  others  as  helpers."2  The  lawlessness  of 
the  period  and  the  lack  of  guarantees  other  than 
forceful  ones  are  shown  by  the  attempt  of  the  Suitors 
to  kill  the  heir  and  divide  the  property  among 
themselves.  The  return  of  Odysseus  restored  the 
strong  hand  and  the  Suitors  fell.  Thus  the 
guarantee  of  Homeric  property  was  force  alone ; 
though  the  gods  reprehended  and  punished  such 
deeds  of  violence,  their  sanction  seemed  to  weigh 
little  with  the  people  at  large.3 

It  remains  to  notice  one  peculiar  case  of  property- 
rights.  We  find  a  man  of  Ithaca  who  kept  his 
horses  and  mules  in  Elis,  since  Ithaca  was  too  rocky 
to  afford  good  pasturage ;  so  Odysseus  had  flocks  on 
the  mainland  which  were  watched  over  by  his  own 
servants  and  by  xeinoi*  This  is  probably  a  mere 
question  of  pasturing  privileges;  it  is  entirely  un- 
likely that  Ithacans  could  own  property  in  the  do- 
mains of  another  tribe ;  yet  apparently,  even  in  the 
case  of  Odysseus,  the  xeinoi  were  not  subjects. 
At  any  rate  it  is  wonderful  to  find  such  extended 

i  ii,  81 ;  xvii,  490-491  ;  iv,  164-167  ;  xvi,  115  ff. 

2  iv,  164-165. 

»  ii,  332-336  ;  iv,  669  ff ;  ii,  64  ff. 

*  iv,  635-637;  cf.  601  ff;  xiv,  100-102. 


PROPERTY  199 

guarantees   and  mutual   trust   in    such  an  age   of 
tribal  strifes. 

If  the  Greeks  were  originally  a  body  of  nomads 
from  the  East,  their  ideas  of  property  in  land  must 
have  been,  in  common  with  those  of  all  such 
wanderers,  extremely  vague  and  undeveloped,  and 
connected  chiefly  with  the  usufruct  of  vast  stretches 
of  ground  for  grazing  purposes.  In  Greece,  owing 
to  the  physical  character  of  the  country,  some  at- 
tempt at  delimitation  of  areas  must  have  been  im- 
posed. With  the  development  of  agriculture,  and 
especially  of  vine  and  tree-culture,  interest  in  the 
continuity  of  possession  of  certain  stretches  of  soil 
must  have  arisen.  Later,  with  the  development  of 
commerce  and  of  communication  with  more  ad- 
vanced nations,  it  is  only  natural  that  earlier  and 
cruder  conceptions  should  have  given  way,  and  that 
a  system  of  land  delimitation  and  tenure  should 
have  been  evolved,  which,  in  a  new  country  and 
among  a  conquered  population,  would  tend  at  first 
to  approach  a  feudal  type.  The  social  system  of 
Homer  has  been  found  to  be  in  many  ways  a  tran- 
sitional one,  and  so  it  appears  to  be  here.  Without 
attempting  any  special  classification  of  the  Homeric 
property-system,  it  may  be  regarded,  as  far  as  the 
question  of  land-tenure  is  concerned,  as  approach- 
ing, through  a  quasi-feudal  system,  the  stage  of 
private  holdings. 


CHAPTEE  V 
MARRIAGE  AND  THE  FAMILY 

MAEETAGE,  in  early  times  a  form  of  property- 
holding,  strikes  its  roots  deep  down  into  the 
economic  basis  of  society.  Whatever  may  be  said 
concerning  the  influence  of  sex-disproportion,  re- 
ligion, etc.,  upon  marriage-forms,  still  it  is  primarily 
under  varying  economic  conditions  that  the  different 
phases  of  marriage  as  a  permanent  relation  arise  and 
decline.  As  marriage  in  its  origin  was  a  combina- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  better  prosecuting  the 
struggle  for  self-maintenance,  so  throughout  its 
history  its  forms  have  been  dependent  upon  the 
economic  efficiency  of  its  contracting  parties.1 

In  its  development  marriage  is  very  closely  con- 
nected with  property ;  in  many  of  its  forms  it  be- 
comes a  mere  property-relation,  and  through  all  its 
phases  it  is  accompanied  and  sanctioned  by  such 
relations.  Until  comparatively  recent  times  mar- 
riage was  not  truly  marriage  unless,  along  with  the 
performance  of  ceremonies,  property  passed  be- 
tween certain  of  the  contracting  parties.  These 
property-relations  are  in  clear  evidence  with  Homer ; 
a  study  of  Homeric  marriage  reveals  their  presence 

i  Sumner,  U.  L. ;  Lippert,  II,  27  ff ;  81  ff. 


MARRIAGE  AND    THE  FAMILY  201 

and  effective  influence  upon  all  the  phases  of  its 
development. 

There  is  in  Homer  no  trace  of  promiscuity,  nor 
do  there  appear,  even  in  the  cult,  any  survivals  of 
the  so-called  promiscuous  state,  i.  e.,  hetairism  in 
any  of  its  forms,  the  "  casa  das  tintas,"  courtesan- 
honor,  wife-lending,  or  the  like.1  In  the  ceremonies 
of  marriage  there  is  no  echo  of  group-marriage,  or 
of  the  forcible  abduction  of  the  bride,  or  of  the 
bride's  or  mother's  resistance.  There  is  no  remote 
trace  of  polyandry,  no  prostitution,  none  of  those 
sexual  excesses  so  common  among  early  mankind. 
There  are  no  marriages  of  trial  or  term,  —  in  short, 
there  are  none  of  the  characteristics  of  a  primitive 
or  tentative  system.  Under  the  prevalent  father- 
rule,  marriage  had  become  an  institution  of  a  set- 
tled and  consistent  patriarchal  type. 

If  the  patriarchate  was  weak  in  some  respects,  it 
was  the  weakness  of  decline,  not  of  early  growth ;  the 
field  is  a  priori  far  from  promising  to  the  searcher 
after  survivals  of  the  mother-family  and  the  female 
line  of  descent.  Instances  which  afford  the  most  satis- 
factory evidence  along  these  lines  are  for  the  most 
part  disconnected  from  the  contemporary  Greek  life 
of  the  age.  In  view,  however,  of  the  interest  which 
centres  about  the  matriarchate  and  its  survivals,  no 
evidence  should  be  neglected  which  can  reasonably 
be  marshalled  under  established  or  plausible  socio- 
logical categories.     Some  of  this  evidence,  it  will  be 

1  Cf.  Lippert,  II,  1  flf. 


202  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

seen,  is  simply  cumulative,  referring,  as  it  does,  to 
the  Phoenician  people;  other  instances  witness 
strongly  to  the  importance  of  the  female  line  of 
descent  among  the  Greeks  themselves.  Naturally 
these  long-past  conditions  might  be  expected  to 
appear  most  clearly  in  the  conservative  cult  and  its 
machinery  of  gods  and  ceremonies. 

We  find,  in  the  first  place,  a  bit  of  myth  common 
to  many  savage  tribes  and  regarded  as  symbolic 
of  the  transition  from  the  mother-rule  to  that  of 
the  father;  the  malignant  divinities  were  largely 
female.1  This  is  more  noticeable  in  the  lesser 
deities  and  personified  powers,  that  portion  of  the 
divine  society  most  likely  to  hold  obsolescent  and 
exotic  products.  Such  evil  powers  were  Ate,  the 
Sirens,  Scylla  and  Charybdis,  Circe,  Calypso,  the 
Chimsera,  the  Fates  of  Death,  and  the  Erinyes. 
Of  these,  the  Erinyes  present  the  extreme  type. 
They  avenged  the  wrongs  of  women  and  of  the 
older,2  and  busied  themselves  especially  in  punish- 
ing oath-breakers.3  Ate  was  the  oldest  daughter 
of  Zeus,  and  other  daimons  of  this  variety  had  a 
thinkable  origin;  the  Erinyes  were  miuistrants  of 
Erebus  and  are  always  surrounded  with  darkness 
and  gloom.  They  were  such  symbolic  beings  as 
would  have  upheld  the  existing  order  in  the  last 

1  Cf.  Lippert,  II,  76 ;  260. 

2  Women:  IX,  566  ff;  XXI,  412-414;  ii,  134-136;  xi,  279- 
280  ;  older  :  IX,  454  ff ;  XV,  204  ;  cf.  xvii,  475  ;  other  cases  . 
XIX,  87-88  ;  418  ;  xv,  233-234 ;  xx,  78. 

8  XIX,  259-260;  for  Kir,  see  Tylor,  395. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  203 

days  of  the  metrocracy.1  In  the  spirit-world  where 
these  evil  female  powers  resided,  there  existed  the 
rule  of  a  woman.  Hades  was  a  figure  of  little  im- 
portance though  he  was  something  more  than  a 
place  ;  2  it  was  Persephone  who  exercised  sway  over 
the  dead  and  from  whom  terrors  came.3 

The  older  stratum  of  gods  also  has  its  interest  in 
a  question  of  this  kind.  To  Lippert,  the  Titans  and 
their  mother  are  significant  figures ;  this  mother 
was  Ge  or  Gaia,  the  Earth-mother.4  She  was  con- 
nected with  the  soil,  grains,  and  agriculture,  and  so 
suggests  the  woman's  function  in  primitive  life, 
whereby  she  for  a  time  maintained  her  supremacy- 
The  contest  of  the  new  patriarchal  order  with  the 
old  order  is  typical.  "  In  contest  with  the  sons  of 
the  Mother,  the  Titans,  a  new  race  of  gods,  win  the 
mastery  in  the  Hellenic  world ;  the  sons  plunge  into 
the  abyss,  but  for  the  Mother  there  is  reserved, 
even  in  the  new  kingdom  of  the  younger  gods,  an 
honourable  place.  The  Father  of  gods  and  men, 
however,  remains  the  ruler."  5     The  battles  of  the 

1  The  Orestes  tale  is  not  told  by  Homer  in  the  manner  of  the 
tragedians  ;  it  throws  all  its  weight  for  the  patriarchate  pure  and 
simple.  No  mention  is  made  of  extended  persecutions  by  the 
Erinyes,  and  the  conduct  of  the  avenger  of  his  father  is  fully  up- 
held; the  Orestes  story,  in  its  later  form,  is  a  classic  instance  of 
transition  from  matriarchate  to  patriarchate,  but  Homer  does  not 
know  it  as  such,     i,  298 ;  iii,  255  ff ;  Lippert,  II,  516. 

2  Seymour,  Iliad,  note  to  I,  3. 

3  xi,  213;  217  ;  226;  385-386;  634-635;  cf.  x,  494-495;  Glad- 
stone, J.  M.,  311-312. 

4  Cf.  Demeter  (Ge  Meter). 

5  Lippert,  II,  76. 


204  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

ancient  heroes  were  revolutions  against  the  old 
order,  and  it  was  the  heroes  of  former  generations 
who  waged  wars  against  such  strange  tribal  sur- 
vivals as  the  Amazons  and  club-fighters.1  The 
Amazons  are  not  without  special  interest  here  5 
they  come  into  action  only  in  the  third  epic  of  the 
Trojan  cycle,  but  are  mentioned  several  times  in 
the  Iliad,  where  they  are  assigned  to  the  East  and 
are  called  "  opposers  of  men."  They  were  to  Homer 
creatures  of  the  past,  and  their  destruction  was  at 
the  hands  of  conspicuous  patriarchs.  Their  con- 
querors were  "rich  in  horses"  and  of  a  typical 
nomad  stamp  in  many  ways;  one  of  them  is 
accredited  with  the  destruction  of  the  Chimsera.2 

Ee turning  to  the  gods,  we  find  Hera  full  of  dis- 
quiet under  the  rule  of  Zeus,  and  always  over- 
interested  in  his  methods  of  ordering  the  universe. 
It  is  significant  to  find  the  Phoenician-appearing 
Hephaestus  abetting  her.  The  story  can  scarcely  be 
a  mere  dramatic  device  or  type,  for  Homer  deals 
in  such  wares  but  seldom.  The  eternal  quarrel  of 
Oceanus,  the  source  of  all,  and  Mother  Tethys 
deserves  mention  here,  as  do  also  the  scruples  of 
Zeus  in  offending  the  ancient  goddess  of  Night.3 

Again,  incest  with  a  mother  was  regarded  as  a 
fearful  crime;  while  Zeus  and  Hera  and  the  sons 

1  III,  184ff;  VI,  186;  VII,  138-145. 

'2  Jebb,  153;  III,  184ff;  VI,  186;  cf.  Starcke,  P.  F.,  250  for 
another  view  ;  II,  813-814  ;  VI,  183. 

8  IV,  58-61  ;  VIII,  205-207  ;  XV,  49  ff ;  104  ff  ;  XXI,  512-513 ; 
XXIV,  65 ;  I,  590;  XIV,  246;  259-261 ;  301  ft. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  205 

and  daughters  of  ^Eolus  present  prosperous  pictures 
of  fraternal  incest.  Counting  iEolus  as  a  god,  it 
can  be  said  that  fraternal  incest  was  confined  to 
divinities,  as  were  many  other  objectionable  prac- 
tices ;  counting  him  as  a  man,  he  belongs  to  the 
ranks  of  the  foreigners  (Phoenicians)  and  so  to  the 
matriarchal  organisation ;  and  besides,  he  lived  in 
isolation.  Alcinous  and  Arete  were  uncle  and 
niece ;  and  several  cases  of  a  like  close  relationship 
in  marriage,  among  genuine  Greeks,  occur.1  All 
are  unreproved  except  the  CEdipus  union.  It  must 
be  admitted,  however,  that  incest-regulations  lend 
themselves  only  very  reluctantly  to  classification.2 

In  the  palace  of  Alcinous,  the  figure  of  Arete,  his 
niece  and  wife,  stands  out  with  a  special  dignity. 
She  and  Alcinous  were  descended  from  the  king  of 
the  Gigantes,  and  she  received  special  honour  from 
her  husband  in  an  apparently  monogamous  union. 
The  people  looked  upon  her  as  upon  a  goddess,  and, 
singularly  enough,  she  "resolved  the  quarrels  of 
men."  Odysseus  was  to  supplicate  her,  and  if  he 
could  win  her  favour,  his  case  was  not  hopeless.3 
She  stood  in  a  remarkably  privileged  position  as 
mistress  of  the  house,  and  she  it  was  who  bade  the 
Phseacian  people  prepare  gifts  for  her  guest-friend 

i  IV,  58  ff ;  XIV,  296 ;  x,  7  ;  cf.  viii,  267  ff ;  x,  1  ff ;  vii,  63  ff ; 
V,  412ff;XI,  225  ff. 

2  Sumner,  U.  L. 

8  vii,  59-77  passim  ;  the  influence  of  the  caesura  in  75  supports 
the  particle  in  strengthening  the  preceding  word ;  cf.  Seymour, 
H.  L.  &  V.,  art.  40. 


206  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

at  his  departure  ;  to  her  Odysseus  handed  the  pledg- 
ing-cup  at  farewell.1  She  seems  to  have  had  great 
power  among  the  people,  which  no  regular  Greek 
king's  wife  possessed. 

Beyond  these  more  sustained  illustrations,  the  re- 
maining evidence  implying  the  public  importance 
of  women  is  fragmentary.  In  one  case  we  find  old 
women  as  ministrants  in  sacrifice,  presided  over  by 
a  married  priestess.  A  beggar  child  is  mentioned 
who  was  named  by  his  mother,  an  exceptional  occur- 
rence in  Homers  time,  though  probably  of  little 
significance.  The  proverb  "  No  one  knows  his  own 
birth  " 2  may  point  to  an  uncertainty  of  fatherhood 
which  would  be  somewhat  remarkable  under  the 
patriarchate.  Further,  there  is  a  passage  where 
Lycaon  is  represented  as  entreating  Achilles  for 
mercy  on  the  ground  that  he  is  not  the  uterine 
brother  of  Hector.  Inasmuch  as  this  is  a  case  of 
blood-revenge,  where  vengeance  falls  first  upon 
those  closest  akin  to  Hector,  the  slayer,  a  brother 
by  the  same  mother  is  evidently  regarded  as  the 
closest  fraternal  relation.  It  is  elsewhere  stated 
that  a  son  or  brother-by-the-same-mother  is  the 
dearest  of  one's  relations.3  In  the  case  of  Lycaon, 
it  must  be  remembered  that  we  are  dealing  with 
conditions  of  polygamy  in  the  house  of  Priam, 
where  the  importance  of  the  male  line  of  descent 
could  not  be  questioned ;  hence  this  evidence  does 

l  xi,  338  ff;  xiii,  57  ff ;  cf.  xv,  147-150. 

3  VI,  287  ;  297  ff ;  xviii,  5 ;  i,  216.         3  XXI,  95  ;  XXIV,  46-47. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  207 

not  go  to  prove  the  superiority  of  the  female  line. 
But  the  passage  does  emphasise  the  importance  of 
the  female  line  of  descent,  and  in  so  far,  at  least, 
witnesses  to  a  survival  of  pre-patriarchal  ideas. 
There  are  no  artificial  methods  of  insisting  upon  the 
male  line,  unless  the  implied  birth  of  Athena  from 
Zeus  alone  may  be  taken  that  way.1 

These  are  the  few  instances  which  point  to  the 
importance  of  women  and  the  female  line  of  descent. 
Since  they  occur  mostly  of  the  gods  or  foreigners, 
it  is  certain  that  Greek  ideas  of  the  matriarchate 
must  have  been  exotic  or  derived  from  the  remote 
past.  Facts  of  state-organisation  —  e.g.,  the  preva- 
lence of  wars  for  booty  and  revenge,  as  contrasted 
with  the  so-called  organisation-wars, —  witness  rather 
to  the  latter  stages  of  the  patriarchate,  when  power 
had  not  yet  passed  definitely  into  the  hands  of  the 
state.2 

If  indications  of  the  matriarchate  are  thus  rare, 
the  prevalent  patriarchate  must  be  the  real  moulding 
force  of  Homeric"  marriage  forms.  Both  of  these 
systems  are  entirely  dependent  upon  economic  con- 
ditions. The  patriarchate  arises  where  the  economic 
effectiveness  of  man  is  relatively  superior  to  that  of 
woman  ;  and  woman's  contribution  in  the  combined 
struggle  for  self-maintenance  becomes  unimportant 
and   negligible   when   once   man   has   attained    to 

1  V,  880. 

2  Lippert,  II,  75 ;  554 ;  for  Matriarchate  and  Patriarchate,  id. 
II,  chs.  1-3  ;  12-13. 


208  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

the  domestication  of  cattle,  especially  of  the  larger 
quadrupeds.1  This  point  of  advance  had  been  long 
passed  in  Homer's  time ;  cattle  were  wealth  and 
money-of-account,  and  the  regime  of  cattle-raising 
was  still  dominant.  Besides  this,  slavery,  especially 
of  women,  had  so  far  entered  the  social  organisation 
that  the  wife's  economic  function  of  food-producer 
was  at  an  end.2  Hence  the  domination  of  man  was 
an  established  fact,  a  custom  of  such  long  stand- 
ing that  women  had  learned  to  submit  themselves 
almost  instinctively  to  its  demands. 

The  nomad-patriarchate  of  the  tribes  which  set- 
tled Greece,  however,  was  shaken  by  new  condi- 
tions imposed ;  the  nature  of  the  country,  and  forced 
sedentary  habits,  gradually  crumbled  away  the  struc- 
tures which  were  built  upon  the  family ;  and,  in 
addition,  contact  with  a  higher  civilisation  had  its 
disintegrating  effect.  The  tribal  elements  which 
possessed  Greek  soil  quickly  amalgamated,  each 
carrying  into  the  union  its  quota  of  ideas  and  cus- 
toms. Preliminarily,  therefore,  one  might  regard 
the  patriarchate  of  Homer  as  supported  by  the 
economic  organisation  and  by  ancestral  tradition, 
but  modified  in  various  ways  from  its  purest  form. 
The  distinctive  features  of  this  patriarchate  will 
appear  in  discussing  Homeric  marriage-customs. 

The  relations  of  man  and  woman  before  marriage 
were  quite  free  from  Oriental  restrictions.  Maiden 
and  man  chatted  together,  and  Nausicaa  went  off 

1  Lippert,  II,  36 ;  cf.  30.  2  Cf.  I,  31 ;  xx,  105  ff ;  etc. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  209 

alone  with  her  maidens,  we  read,  to  wash  the 
clothes.  Youths  and  maidens  danced  together  in 
the  vintage-ceremonies,  and  the  daughters  of  the 
house  met  freely  with  young  men  who  visited 
their  fathers.1  Nevertheless,  as  is  usual  under  the 
patriarchate,  strict  chastity  was  demanded  of  the 
unmarried  woman  ;  Kausicaa  feared  evil  report  if 
the  strange  Odysseus  should  accompany  her 
through  the  city,  and  frankly  told  him  that  the 
people  would  suspect  what  would  be  a  "shame" 
to  her.2  Exceptions  to  this  custom  of  demanding 
chastity  recall  familiar  ethnographical  instances ; 
relations  with  a  god  were  far  from  decreasing  the 
value  of  a  woman.3 

The  feeling  of  shame,  as  the  above  instance  of 
Nausicaa  shows,  was  not  merely  a  question  of  or- 
nament and  its  lack;  a  sense  of  shame  is  found 
elsewhere  in  its  modern  type.4  It  was  a  "shame" 
for  even  a  married  woman  to  go  alone  into  the 
presence  of  men  in  her  own  house,  though  to  have 
two  maids  with  her  removed  her  scruples ; 5  in  this 
case  we  are  in  the  presence  of  a  patriarchal  re- 
striction, as  with  the  imposition  of  chastity.  A 
sort  of  tabu  on  certain  parts  of  the  body  may  have 

1  XXII,  126  ff ;  vi,  71  ff;  XVIII,  567  ff;  593  ff. 

2  vi,  15-19;  109;  276  ff. 

3  II,  514  ;  XVI,  180  ff ;  xi,  235-259. 

*  XIV,  333  ff ;  viii,  332  ff ;  vi,  136  ff ;  diffidence  in  the  latter 
case  may  have  been  due  to  general  appearance  (cf.  vi,  137),  as  the 
feeling  is  exceptional. 

6  xviii,  184  ff. 

14 


210  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

been  at  the  root  of  some  of  these  ideas  concerning 
shame.1 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  the  young  women 
of  the  households  bathed  and  anointed  the  young 
men  who  were  the  guests  of  the  house,2  and  one  is 
led  to  believe  that,  in  the  majority  of  instances, 
modesty  was  formal  and  traditional,  founded  upon 
patriarchal  restrictions  and  not  yet  instinctive. 
Freedom  of  expression  between  the  sexes  points 
the  same  way ;  there  was  little  or  nothing  to  con- 
ceal. Indeed,  methods  of  sexual  attraction  were 
most  successful  when  novelties  of  ornament  or 
dress  stimulated  the  imagination ;  a  fact  abundantly 
paralleled  in  ethnography.3 

Beauty  and  accomplishments  in  the  duties  of  the 
house-wife,  in  woman,  and  beauty  and  courage  in 
man,  offered  mutual  attractions  between  the  sexes ; 4 
they  were  desirable  in  marriage,  partly,  we  sus- 
pect, for  the  sake  of  fine  offspring,  for  hereditary 
qualities  were  clearly  recognised  among  men  (where 
regularly  the  father's  part  was  emphasised)  as  well 
as  among  animals.5  The  desire  for  children  was  a 
great  spur  to  marriage,  for  dynastic  and  other 
reasons.     It  should  be  noted  here  that  in  the  con- 

1  Cf.  p.  167  above. 

2  V,  905  ;  iii,  464-468  ;  iv,  49  ff ;  252-253. 

8  vi,  275  ff ;  XIV,  181  ff ;  xvi,  416;  xviii,  210;  Lippert,  I,  65: 
375 ;  434  ff. 

*  IX,  389;  xi,  282;  cf.  Ill,  156  ff ;  400  ff ;  428  ff ;  XIII,  431- 
433  ;  xviii,  246-249;  vi,  244;  viii,  310;  cf.  Westermarck,  157  ff. 

6  IV,  400;  V,  635;  800  ff  (cf.  892);  VI,  211;  iv,  142-150; 
xix,  395-398  ;  animals  :  V,  268  ff. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  211 

sideration  of  marriage  and  the  family,  from  first 
to  last,  a  distinction  must  be  constantly  and 
sharply  drawn  between  the  feelings  and  customs 
connected  with  the  chief  wife  and  those  having  to 
do  with  women  whose  personality  did  not  enter 
into  economic  or  dynastic  calculations.  The  im- 
portance of  such  calculations  is  paramount  in 
Homer.1 

Concerning  the  marriage-age  we  can  only  guess. 
The  young  Nausicaa  was  nearing  her  marriage,  and 
we  are  given  to  understand  that  the  ceremony 
took  place  in  the  bloom  of  life.2 

In  general,  the  conditions  before  marriage  were 
pure  and  natural.  Before  young  men  and  maidens 
stood  an  alluring  ideal  of  domestic  happiness.  Celi- 
bacy was  not  encouraged,  and  marriage  was  longed 
for  as  the  best  thing  on  earth.  The  memories  of 
youth  and  love  were  dearly  cherished,  and  young 
men  seem  to  have  been  singularly  free  from  base 
passion,  which  had  no  part  in  a  well-ordered  life.3 
The  young  looked  forward  to  marriage  with  whole- 
some and  healthy  mind ;  even  if  economic  motives 
were  involved,  that  was  chiefly  the  business  of  the 
elders.  Passion  and  flagrant  departures  from  patri- 
archal norms  occurred  almost  exclusively  among 
the  gods,  with  whom  men  ever  compare  favourably, 
according  to  our  later  notions. 

1  Cf.  xi,  178  ;  xviii,  266-270;  xix,  525  ff. 

2  vi,  25  ff;  xx,  74;  I,  114. 

8  vi,  182  ff ;  xv,  126 ;  XV,  39  ff ;  47 ;  V,  349 ;  VI,  161-162 ;  IX, 
451  ff. 


212  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

The  preliminaries  of  marriage,  like  the  injunc- 
tions upon  the  unmarried,  were  of  a  distinct  patri- 
archal type.  We  are  called  upon  to  distinguish 
between  the  maiden  and  widow,  and  between  the 
chief  wife  and  the  inferior  "  wives,"  in  point  of 
preliminary  arrangements  leading  to  marriage.  The 
characteristic  feature  of  Homeric  marriage-prelimi- 
naries, in  perfect  consonance  with  the  patriarchal 
mode,  is  wife-purchase.1  "  Women,"  i.  e.,  concu- 
bines, had  values  set  upon  them,  were  given  as 
prizes  and  bought  like  cattle ; 2  they  were  mere 
slaves  and  treated  as  such.  A  wife,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  regularly  sought  with  gifts,  that  is,  was 
bought  in  a  more  formal  and  distinctive  way.3 
Gifts  in  the  case  of  the  (supposed)  widow  Penelope 
were  presented  to  the  woman  herself  before  she 
made  any  decision ;  they  were  apparently  turned 
over  later  to  the  possession  of  her  husband's 
house.4  A  wife  was  called  poly  dor  os,  and  maidens 
were  "  those  who  bring  cattle."  5 

These  "  gifts  "  to  the  bride's  father  and  family 
were  usually  cattle,  and  the  woman  went  to  the 
highest  bidder.  A  preliminary  meeting  of  the  man- 
aging parties,  for  the  sake  of  bargaining  and  set- 
tling terms,  is  indicated.     Payment  was  sometimes 

1  Cf.  Westermarck,  396  ;  405-406. 

2  XXIII,  703  ff;  1,481;  etc. 

8  XVI,  178;  190;  XVIII,  593;  XXII,  472;  vi,  159;  xv,  367; 
xviii,  275  ff  ;  xix,  529  ;  xxi,  161  ;  and  ref.  below. 

*  xviii,  290  ff;  cf  xi,  117;  xiii,  378;  xviii,  281-283. 
6  VI,  394  ;  XXII,  88  ;  xxiv,  294 ;  cf.  VI,  246  ;  i,  36. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY          213 

made  in  part  and  promised  in  part,  and  in  one  case 
where  the  bride's  father  retained  a  child,  some  idea 
of  payment  may  have  been  in  question.1  Wives 
were  sometimes  given  to  brave  men  as  a  reward  for 
services  rendered,  which  is  merely  another  way  of 
saying  that  the  price  was  commuted  for  services,  —  a 
thing  likely  to  be  common  in  those  warlike  times. 
This  service  might  be  performed  by  one  man  for 
another's  sake.2  Wherever  there  were  gifts  offered 
with  the  bride,  some  idea  of  recompense  was  im- 
plied; sometimes  this  was  done  for  the  sake  of 
good  connections.3  There  is  absolutely  no  dower  as 
such  in  Homer,  nor  more  than  the  beginning  of 
return-gifts  to  the  bride ;  occasionally  she  got  a  per- 
sonal gift  of  a  slave,  and  sometimes  richer  gifts, 
which  were  apparently  hers  and  her  children's,  — 
they  were  not  given  to  the  groom.4  In  Homer  the 
distinction  between  wife  and  concubine  is,  in  general, 
that  one  is  honourably  bought  and  the  other  cap- 
tured ;  at  all  events,  the  wife  was  bought  and  taken 
possession  of  with  ceremonies.  'VEpithets  of  women 
indicating  that  they  were  worth  many  cattle  were 
honourable;  being  bought,  in  Homer,  was  about 
as  important  to  the  wife  as  it  was  later  to  be  en- 

1  XI,  244  ;    XVIII,   593;    xviii,  278  ff;   xxi,  160-162;  cf.  xv, 
16  fl  ;  xvi,  392;  XIII,  379-382  ;  cf.  365-369  ;  XI,  244  ;  223  ff. 

2  XIII,  365-369 ;  XIV,  268;    (cf.  xiv,  211-213;  xxi,  214);  VI, 
192  ;   IX,  120  ff  ;  xi,  287  ff ;  xv,  231-238. 

3  IX,  120  ff;   157;  vii,  313-314;  xiv,  211-213. 

*  iv,  735-736 ;   xxiii,  228 ;  cf.    Westermarck,  405-406  j    XXII, 
49  ff. 


214  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

dowered.1  How  strictly  the  woman  was  regarded 
as  property,  and  to  how  great  an  extent  property- 
considerations  entered  into  marriage,  are  again  em- 
phasised ;  also  we  learn  that  in  a  case  of  adultery 
the  sale  was  void,  and  the  article  and  price  mutually 
returnable.2 

The  father's  power  was  very  great;  to  him  the 
daughter  belonged,  and  he  promised  and  married  her 
with  no  thought  of  her  own  feeling  in  the  matter' 
The  same  power  extended  to  a  certain  degree  over 
the  widowed  daughter.  Like  the  Hebrew  patri- 
arch, the  father  often  picked  out  a  wife  for  his 
son  with  the  son's  material  welfare  in  mind.3  Pos- 
sibly the  girl  was  expected  to  perform  some  last  act 
of  service  for  the  ancestral  house  before  her  mar- 
riage and  in  preparation  for  it,  and  the  widow  took 
pains  before  re-marriage  to  at  least  assure  her  hus- 
band's father  of  proper  burial4  Marriage  of  slaves 
seems  to  have  been  at  the  master's  will.5 

Marriage  was  not  strictly  exogamous  with  respect 
to  gens,  though  it  tended  toward  that  form ;  some 
unions  were  contracted  between  parties  living  at 
great  distances  from  each  other,  according  to  the 
distance-standards  of  those  days.  In  the  case  of 
Nausicaa,  the  people  of  her  country  would  seem  to 
have  resented  the  idea  of  her  marrying  a  foreigner. 

i  I,  111  ff  ;  IX,  340-343  ;  Westermarck,  415. 

2  viii,  317-318. 

3  VI,  192;  IX,  144  ff;  iv,  5-7;  cf .  XIX,    295-299;  xv,  16-21; 
IX,  394;  iv,  10. 

*  vi,  25  ff;  xix,  141  ff.  6  xiv,  62-63;  xxi,  214. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  215 

Marriages  were,  of  course,  bonds  of  political  union 
between  kings.1 

Several  points  regarding  the  re-marriage  of  a 
widow  have  already  beeu  touched  upon.  The  status 
of  a  married  woman  and  a  mother  had  more  of  dig- 
nity than  that  of  a  simple  maiden,  and  the  question 
of  re-marriage  will  be  better  understood  after  con- 
sidering the  position  of  the  wife  in  the  household. 
Preliminarily  it  may  be  said  that  her  freedom  of 
choice  appears  greater,  although  her  son  could  give 
her  away  on  his  accession  to  the  headship  of  the 
house.2  The  most  interesting  point  concerning  the 
widow's  re-marriage  is  the  apparently  continued 
influence  of  her  father  and  brothers.  Telemachus, 
driven  to  despair,  declared  that  he  would  give  rich 
gifts  with  his  mother,  if  she  would  marry ;  this  was 
just  what  the  lawless  Suitors  wished,  for  all  they 
feared  was  that  Penelope  should  be  sent  back  to 
her  father,  Icarius,  in  which  case  gifts  would  be 
required  from  the  groom  in  goodly  number,  and  she 
would  go  to  the  highest  bidder.3  The  normal  case 
is,  probably,  that  the  widow  should  re-marry  from 
her  former  husband's  house,4  and  that  that  house 
should  receive  the  gifts  or  purchase-money.  This 
is  in  better  accord  with  a  patriarchal  system,  —  at 
any   rate,   the    sending    back    of    Penelope   to  her 

1  VIII,  304;  XI,  221  ff ;    iv,   %  ff ;    797-798;   vi,   282-284;    VI, 
168  ff;   XIII,  173-176. 

2  ii,  223. 

8  i,  275-278;   ii,  52-54  ;   cf.  113-114;  195-197;    xv,  16ff. 
*  xviii,  269-270 ;  xix,  528-529. 


216  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

father  was  not  a  marriage  preliminary.  It  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  her  re-marriage  in  it- 
self, but  was  a  last  measure  for  ridding  the  estate 
of  its  parasites,  and  was  an  evident  disgrace  to  the 
wife,  —  a  sort  of  repudiation  which  could  call  down 
her  curses  and  cause  her  family  to  impose  a  fine. 
The  bow-trial  was  an  attendant  feature  in  the  case 
of  Penelope,  recalling  past  customs  by  which  the 
strongest  in  a  contest  won  the  bride.1 

Such  were  the  conditions  and  preliminaries  of 
marriage  ;  for  the  most  part  variations  of  a  contract 
of  sale.  The  relation  of  marriage  and  property 
discovers  itself  typically  in  these  preliminaries,  to 
be  developed  more  fully  in  customs  and  modes  of 
thought  having  to  do  with  the  position  of  woman  in 
the  family,  and  with  inheritance. 

Married  life  began  with  certain  ceremonies  which 
were  the  dim  antecedents  of  later  Hellenic  marriage- 
rites.2  It  will  be  remarked  that,  as  usual,  only  the 
juridic  marriage  —  that  which  had  to  do  with  estate 
and  dynasty  —  was  celebrated  with  ceremonies. 
The  chief  wife,  the  partner  of  the  domestic  economy, 
the  wife  won  with  gifts,  was  the  one  whose  advent 
called  for  public  recognition ; 3  the  position  of  this 
head-wife  was  a  social  status  and  demanded  a 
symbol. 

The  wedding-day  was  celebrated  with  feasts  pro- 

1  ii,  130  ff ;  xxi,  74-79;  cf.  Westermarck,  157-164. 

2  Friedreich,  202. 

8  Cf.  i,  36  ;  iii,  381 ;  403  ;  vii,  53 ;  241  ;  xi,  285  ;  345  ;  xvi,  332  ; 
xvii,  583. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  217 

vided  by  the  groom,  in  the  house,  of  the  bride's 
father ;  the  groom,  if  he  lived  far  away,  might  not 
be  present  or  might  be  present  by  proxy.1  All  were 
decked  out  in  costly  raiment  and,  in  general,  gifts 
were  given  by  those  present.2  Dancing  and  singing 
formed  part  of  the  ceremonies  and  the  bride  was  led, 
under  the  glow  of  torches,  to  the  house  of  her  future 
husband.3  The  bride  seems  to  have  been  veiled  — 
a  common  survival  of  the  old  attempt  to  avoid 
angering  the  ancestral  spirits  by  an  unceremonious 
withdrawal  of  their  servant ;  the  great  marriage-feast, 
to  which  all  the  relations  were  invited,  points  the 
same  way.4  The  gods  presided  over  marriage,  but 
there  was  no  priest  or  sacrifice  needed ; 6  there  were 
no  ceremonies  referable  to  the  custom  of  bride-cap- 
ture, nor  are  ceremonial  rites  of  the  wedding-night 
mentioned.  The  newly  married  couple  lived  regu- 
larly in  an  addition  built  by  the  groom  to  his  father's 
house ;  the  daughters  and  sons-in-law  of  a  rich  prince 
like  Priam  might  live  with  him,  but  such  was  very 
rarely  the  case.6  Occasionally  sons  might  build 
houses  near  that  of  the  father,  but  not  joined  to  it, 
and  sometimes  they  lived  in  quite  another  city.     In 

1  i,  226;  xviii,  275  ff ;  iv,  3ff. 

2  XVII,   443;    XVIII,    84-85;    XXII,  470-471;   cf.  xv,    126- 
128. 

3  XXIV,  62-63;  iv,  15-19;  xxiii,  134-136;  XI,  221  ff ;  XVIII, 
491-496;  iii,  272;  iv,  5  ff  ;  798  ff;  xv,  367  ;  xix,  399  ff . 

*  Cf.  XXII,  470  ff;  iv,  3ff ;  Lippert,  II,  145  ;  238. 
6  iv,  7  ;  vi,  180  ff ;  xv,  26;  cf.  Westermarck,  426. 
«  XVII,  36;  vi,  62-63;  xxiii,  189  ff;  VI,  249  ff;  cf.  XI,  739;  iii, 
387  ff;  vii,  313-314. 


218  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

general,  however,  it  was  supposed  that  a  man  was 
from  his  father's  town  or  country.1 

As  has  been  said,  the  sharp  distinction  must  ever 
be  kept  in  mind  which  existed  between  the  chief 
wife  and  the  others.  The  prevalence  of  concubinage, 
together  with  one  chief  wife,  marks  the  form  of 
Homeric  marriage  as  "juridic  monogamy,"  in  dis- 
tinction from  factual  monogamy,  which  is,  on  the 
whole,  quite  rare,  and  as  opposed  to  polygamy, 
which  is  demonstrable  only  in  the  case  of  Priam 
among  men.2  Yet  even  Priam  had  a  chief  wife  ; 
among  the  gods,  as  usual,  the  looser  system  was 
more  pronounced.3  All  such  distinctions  must  rest 
upon  the  presence  or  absence  of  public  ceremonies ; 
whether  the  marriage  was  an  "  open  "  one  or  not  made 
all  the  difference  in  the  world  in  Homer's  time.4 
Juridic  monogamy  allowed  freely  the  gratification  of 
affection,  while  the  solidity  and  firmness  of  the  house 
was  assured  by  the  offspring  of  the  chief  wife ; 
this  system  was  tempering  polygamy  toward  mo- 
nogamy in  its  modern  sense.5  Here  again  dynastic 
motives  ruled  the  whole  system. 

Perhaps  the  clearest  case  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween head-wife  and  concubine  lies  in  the  Chryseis- 
Briseis  episode.     Agamemnon  had  a  head-wife  and 

1  VI,  316-317  ;  cf.  iii,  387  ff ;  xi,  254  ff ;  xv,  254  ;  i,  170. 

2  Starke,  P.  F.,  sect.  II,  ch.  Ill ;  also  pp.  263-264 ;  Durkheim, 
48 ;  XXI,  85  ff ;  XXII,  46  ff ;  XXIV,  495  ff. 

8  XIV,  317  ff;  viii,  266  ff  (cf.  XVIII,  383) ;  xi,  580;  Gladstone, 
Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  III,  211-212. 

4  v,  120;  vi,  288. 

5  Letourneau,  Marr.,  161. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  219 

Achilles  expected  one.  Entirely  apart  from  these 
conditions  came  the  fondness  for  the  captives  of 
war,  as  if  affection  and  marriage  were  quite  distinct  ;J 
the  beloved  captive  was  compared  with  the  wife  in 
a  way  which  showed  no  real  affection  for  the  lat- 
ter. Achilles's  tenderness  for  Briseis  has  occasioned 
rhapsodies  by  those  who  forget  that  after  all  Briseis 
was  no  wife.2  It  is  clear,  however,  that  in  the 
home-land  all  the  attributes  of  wife  that  would 
imply  more  than  mutual  tenderness  would  go  to  the 
ceremonially  bought  wives ;  they  were  recognised 
and  sanctioned  organs  for  the  production  of  a  line 
of  descent  and  property-inheritance.8 

This  separation  of  affection  and  economic  interests 
is  one  more  of  the  finger-marks  of  the  economic 
organisation  upon  the  marital.  If  affection  and 
interest  in  Homer  are  united,  we  have  a  picture 
that  would  do  credit  to  any  age  of  the  world. 
When  the  chief  wife  was  also  the  loved  wife, 
affection  was  very  strong  and  true.4  The  pathos  of 
the  fate  of  Hector  and  Andromache  speaks  to  us 
across  the  ages;  the  fact  that  such  motives  of 
affection  and  despair  were  used  by  the  great  artist 
casts   a    strong    light   upon     the    period    and   its 

1  IX,  394;  this  is  marriage  (or,  rather  slavery)  by  capture 
(Letourneau,  Marr ,  eh.  VI)  ;  these  slaves  might  be  ceremonially 
married  and  then  become  real  wives  (XIX,  297-299). 

2  I,  113  (cf.  force  of  "ra");  348  ff;  IX,  340  ff.  Terms  for 
"  husband  "  and  "  wife  "  are  lax  ;  cf.  Ill,  140  ;  163  ;  325;  Autenrieth, 
sub  "  alochos."     Both  terms  mean  "  consort." 

8  Westermarck,  433  ;  508;  Letourneau,  Marr.,  ch.  XII. 
*  VI,  450  ff  ;  XXII,  477  ff  ;  v,  215  ff  ;  vi,  306  ff ;  vii,  67  ff. 


220  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

conditions.  With  this  ideal  in  mind,  the  crime  of 
Clytsemnestra  was  the  more  shameful,  and  Agamem- 
non's words  were  those  of  sorrowful  wonder  and 
horror  at  the  deed,  and  of  deepest  reverence  for 
Penelope's  faithfulness,  as  he  addressed  Odysseus 
from  among  the  shades.  The  crime  led  to  bitter 
words  against  all  women,  whose  lust,  it  is  said,  leads 
them  to  misdeeds.1 

The  head- wife  seemed  content  with  existing  con- 
ditions so  long  as  she  was  the  favourite  ;2  the  crime 
of  Clytsemnestra  has  been  sometimes  motived  by 
jealousy,  and  Homer  mentions  the  object  of  this 
jealousy,  who  perished  with  Agamemnon  ;  other 
causes  of  jealousy  were  not  lacking.3  In  general, 
man  imposed  far  less  continence  upon  himself  than 
he  required  of  woman. 

The  position  of  the  concubine  was  one  of  far  fewer 
rights ;  she  was  a  piece  of  booty,  won  in  war,  kid- 
napped, or  bought  from  some  one  who  had  acquired 
her  in  one  of  these  ways.4  War  in  those  times 
meant  that  all  the  resources,  vital  and  other,  of 
the  conquered  lay  absolutely  at  the  disposal  of  the 
victor.  These  Greek  victors  were  not  at  that  point 
of  development  of  social  organisation  where  they 
could  hold  in  subjection  many  times  their  own  num- 

1  xi,  405  ff ;  cf.  327  ;  444  ff ;  xxiv,  192  ff ;  xi,  436-443  ;  xv,  20  ff ; 
420  ff. 

2  E.  g.,  Helen  ;  cf.  iv,  11 ;  XXIV,  495  ff. 

3  xi,  422 ;  IX,  447  ff ;  XVIII,  117-1 19 ;  XIX,  100  ff  ;  i,  433 ;  xi, 
405  ff. 

4  IX,  128 ;  343 ;  XXIII,  263  ;  i,  430;  etc. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  221  «- 

ber  of  men  by  the  very  strength  of  their  discipline, 
and  so,  in  event  of  capturing  a  town,  they  killed  the 
men  and  took  the  more  docile  women  and  children 
as  slaves.1  Such  persons  were  property  to  be  used 
at  will ;  the  difference  between  concubine  and  slave 
was  negligible  in  those  times.  These  women  were 
set  to  work  and  kept  at  it  busily,  but  were  not  ill- 
treated;  only  lack  of  loyalty  to  the  house  and  es- 
pecially assumption  of  property-rights  in  their  own 
persons  (adultery)  met  stern  punishment.  Women- 
slaves  were  often  nurses  of  their  master's  children 
and  entirely  devoted  to  them.2 

The  position  of  the  woman,  then,  was  typical 
of  the  patriarchate,  with  the  exceptions  mentioned 
above.3  She  was  really  the  head-servant,  an  over- 
seer of  the  female  slaves ;  women,  even  princesses, 
made  and  washed  the  clothing  of  the  family.4  The 
woman's  part  in  life,  with  few  exceptions,  did  not 
extend  beyond  the  house,  though  her  liberty  of 
going  and  coming  was  not  restricted  in  what  we  are 
wont  to  call  the  Oriental  manner.5  In  going  about, 
a  princess  was  usually  veiled  and  accompanied  by 
maids ;  Penelope  seems  to  have  stayed  in  the  upper 
room  of  her  house  chiefly  on  account  of  the  presence 
of  the  Suitors  (to  whom  she  appeared  only  when 
veiled),  yet  the  upper  workroom  was  distinctly  the 

1  IX,  592-594. 

2  VI,  491  ff;  xx,  107  ff;  xxii,  421  ff;  462  ff;  ii,  428  ff. 
8  See  pp.  195  ff. 

«  XXII,  154-156  ;  vi,  26  ff ;  III,  125-127  ;  vii,  234-235. 
6  Cf.  Ill,  384;  VI,  237  ff  j  XXIV,  707. 


222  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

woman's  realm.1  Woman  in  a  society  like  that  of 
Homer's  time  needed  a  defender;  alone  she  was 
indeed  weak,  even  though  she  could  in  a  friendly 
land  do  something  to  support  herself  and  her  chil- 
dren j  the  sorrow  and  misery  of  widow  and  orphan 
are  several  times  portrayed.2  Occasionally  women 
discharged  a  really  important  social  function,  — 
there  is  one  case  of  a  priestess  of  Athena,  and  the 
number  of  women  in  the  Nekuia  shows  that  woman 
was  an  important  factor  in  society  —  but,  on  the 
whole,  her  sphere  was  the  home. 

The  case  of  the  re-marriage  of  a  widow  affords 
many  striking  examples  of  the  position  of  woman  in 
the  family  and  of  her  relation  to  the  succession. 
The  features  of  Penelope's  story  essential  for  the 
purpose  are  briefly  the  following.  A  newly-married 
wife  was  left  alone  with  a  young  son  and  aged  father- 
in-law,  as  regent  over  a  large  property.3  Sixteen 
years  passed,  and,  encouraged  by  the  lapse  of  time, 
suitors  and  servants,  over  one  hundred  in  all, 
came  and  established  headquarters  in  her  house ; 
trusting  to  their  number,  and  probably  making 
pretext  of  the  king's  duties  of  hospitality,  they  were 
rapidly  laying  waste  the  ancestral  possessions.4  This 
they  did  while  the  son  was  yet  young,  and  the  grand- 
sire,  too  old  and  weak  to  resist,  was  apparently  forced 

1  III,  141  ff;  XXII,  460  ff ;  i,  330;  356  ff;  xviii,  302. 

2  xix,  127;  XII,  433-435;  VI,  450 ff;  XXII,  475  ff;  viii, 
523  ff. 

3  iv,  144;  xi,  447;  xviii,  267  ff. 
*  xvi,  247  ff;  i,  231  ff;  ii,  55  ff. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  223 

by  his  wounded  pride  to  retire  from  the  scene.1  The 
whole  weight  of  the  situation  fell  upon  the  wife, 
and,  at  the  opening  of  the  Odyssey,  the  time  was  at 
hand  when  her  regency  was  over,  and  when  by  stay- 
ing she  was  merely  injuring  her  son's  prospects.2 
The  Suitors  had  promised  to  remain  until  she  decided 
on  re-marriage,  and  came  every  morning  from  their 
dwellings  round  about.3 

The  woman  could  not  brook  the  idea  of  the  "  hate-*"' 
f ul "  marriage,  having  in  mind  her  love  for  Odysseus 
and  the  popular  sentiment  against  re-marriage  before 
tidings  of  the  absent  husband's  death  were  verified.4 
The  choice  rested  with  her,  though  her  son  was 
master  of  herself  and  the  house ;  for  he  feared  the 
Erinyes,  if  he  sent  her  away  against  her  will,  and 
besides  he  would  have  to  pay  the  fine  due  her  father 
in  such  a  case.5  He  had  the  power  to  give  her  away 
and  his  loss  of  property  was  telling  on  his  patience 
severely,  especially  as  he  believed  his  father  dead.6 
He  begged  his  mother  to  go,  was  eager  to  buy  off 
the  Suitors  at  any  price,  and  offered  to  give  rich  gifts 
with  his  mother.7 

Between  the  alternatives  the  wife  was  unable  to 

1  i,  296-297  ;  xviii,  267;  i,  189ff. 

2  ii,  87-88;  xix,  158ff;  525  ff;  xxi,  103-105. 
8  ii,  123-128;  i,  245  ff;  xx,  155-156. 

4  i,  249;  xix,  136;  527;  xxiii,  149-151. 

5  ii,  128;  xviii,  269-270 ;  ii,  113;  195;  223;  xix,  158-161;  xxi. 
344  ff;  ii,  132-133. 

•  ii,  223;   xix,  159 ff;   533-534;    xxi,  103-105;   i,  161-162;  ii, 
46. 

i  xix,  533-534 ;  xx,  342. 


224  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

choose,  but  mourned  and  hoped  and  put  off  the 
Suitors  by  stratagem,  striving  to  "do  honour"  to 
her  husband  and  son.1  Meanwhile  the  Suitors,  who 
were  there  merely  by  lawless  force  and  feared  at 
least  exile  for  it,  arrogantly  assumed  the  rights  of 
succession,  and  proposed  to  kill  Telemachus,  divide 
the  movable  property,  and  give  the  house  to  Penel- 
ope and  the  husband  whom  she  should  choose. 
The  heir  could  not  reclaim  from  them  his  losses, 
and  had  to  ask  them  for  a  ship  in  his  own  land.2 
He  had  no  recourse  save  to  the  gods,  i.  e.,  to  the 
religious  sanctions  of  justice,  and  might  lose  his 
royal  succession  which  the  Suitors  hoped  to  gain 
with  the  widow.3 

In  the  twentieth  year  Odysseus  suddenly  re- 
turned and  exacted  ample  vengeance  for  the  whole 
persecution ;  Penelope's  fame  became  immortal,  and 
her  name  a  synonym  of  wifely  faithfulness  and 
true-heartedness.4 

There  is  sociological  interest  in  almost  every  as- 
pect of  this  episode,  but  a  few  general  conclusions 
may  be  drawn.  The  popular  sentiment,  we  find, 
was  distinctly  against  re-marriage  while  the  pos- 
sibility of  the  husband  being  alive  still  existed ;  the 
ideal  woman  would  wait  indefinitely,  even  if  the 
husband  did  not  demand  it.5     The  fact  that  Odys- 

1  xviii,  160-162;  256;  xix,  141  ff. 

2  xvi,  381-382  ;  ii,  332  ff ;  iv,  669  ff ';  ii,  70  ff ;  212. 

3  ii,  143-145;  cf.  161  ff;  xv,  522;  xxii,  51  ff;  JEgisthus  did  gain 
the  succession  with  Clytsemnestra,  at  least  for  a  time  (iii,  304-305). 

4  xxiv,  194-198.  6  xviii,  269-270. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  225 

seus  deprecated  re-marriage  during  the  minority  of 
his  son  points  to  the  dynastic  succession  and  the 
interests  of  the  house  as  paramount.  In  her  regent- 
ship  the  wife  was  not  alone,  though  great  trust  was 
reposed  in  her;  Clytsemnestra  also  was  provided 
with  an  advisor.  Generally,  if  it  was  possible,  sons 
stayed  and  managed  the  estate;1  in  Ithaca,  and  in 
Mycenae  as  well,  there  was  only  one  son  and  he  an 
infant,  facts  which  led  to  unstable  situations  in  both 
cases.  We  notice  the  immediate  acquiescence  of 
the  mother  in  the  son's  "  accession,"  and  her  prompt 
and  proud  obedience  to  that  son ;  this  points  to  the 
wife's  assimilation  with  her  husband's  family,  and 
the  evidence  is  strengthened  by  the  feeling  of  duty 
toward  the  husband's  father  which  we  find  ex- 
hibited.2 It  is  noticeable  that  the  re-married  widow 
might  carry  a  pretext  of  succession  to  her  second 
husband  in  the  matter  of  the  kingship ;  this  was 
probably  a  mere  pretext,  and  since  Penelope  was,  in 
marrying,  to  leave  her  former  husband's  house,3  and 
since  her  suitors  could  not  expect  to  divide  Odys- 
seus's  property,  except  in  the  event  of  the  son's 
death,  it  is  not  likely  that  a  woman  could  carry  the 
right  of  inheritance  of  property.  In  the  matter  of 
actual  rights,  the  woman's  position  was  but  slightly 
guaranteed  ;  but  there  were  moral  restrictions  of  the 
man's  power,  and  one  of    the  most  important  of 

1  ii,  225-227  ;  iii,  267  ff ;  XXIV,  399-400;  ii,  17-22. 

2  xxi,  350  ff ;  xix,  141  ff;  xxiv,  134  ff. 
8  xviii,  270. 


226  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

these  was  the  consideration  owed  to  the  dignity  of 
motherhood.  The  title  of  honour  which  mother- 
hood gave  in  Homer's  time  was  the  dearest  pos- 
session of  women,  and  a  source  of  reverence  and 
respect  commensurate  with  the  passion  for  children 
of  those  ages.1  Also  a  degree  of  affection  some- 
times existed  between  man  and  wife  which  may  be 
favourably  compared  with  that  exhibited  in  any  age 
of  the  world. 

The  story  of  Clytsemnestra  and  iEgisthus  has 
been  mentioned  from  time  to  time.  Though  Homer 
was  far  too  great  a  poet  and  artist  to  deal  in  mere 
antitheses  of  character  and  situation,  still  from  the 
merely  fragmentary  account  of  the  iEgisthus-epi- 
sode,  we  can  construct,  by  reading  between  the 
lines,  a  very  fair  idea  of  what  would  have  happened 
in  Ithaca  if  Penelope  had  yielded  while  her  son  was 
yet  a  boy.  The  consequences  of  such  yielding  were 
inevitably  the  murder  of  the  husband,  and  the 
flight  or  death  of  the  son,  when  once  the  usurper 
had  made  good  his  pretensions.2 

There  seems  to  have  been  one  real  guarantee,  that 
is,  a  property-guarantee,  of  the  wife's  position  ver- 
sus the  concubine's.3  We  read  that  if  Telemachus 
had  sent  his  mother  from  her  home,  there  would 
have   been   heavy   fines    due    her    father   Icarius.4 

1  ii,  131 ;  cf.  Starcke,  P.  F.f  116. 

2  iii,  255  ff;  306-307. 

8  Cf.  Westermarck,  432. 

4  This  payment  was  evidently  a  fine  ;  it  would  be  unjustifiable 
to  take  it  as  a  return  of  a  (large)  dowry  in  the  face  of  the  else- 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  227    W^ 

Such  a  proceeding  would  also  have  called  down 
the  curses  of  the  mother,1  as  it  would  evidently 
have  been  a  kind  of  disgrace  to  her;  only  the 
extremest  peril  of  the  estate  could  lead  to  such 
dismissal.  A  guarantee  of  this  kind  is  distinctly 
in  accord  with  that  phase  of  the  patriarchate  where 
the  wife's  father  can,  and  will,  stipulate  as  to  her 
treatment.2 

From  the  general  attitude  of  the  times  toward 
marriage,  it  is  likely  that  bona  fide  widows  were  ex- 
pected to  marry  again  at  once;  there  are  no  pas- 
sages to  bear  this  point  out  or  to  refute  it.  The 
widows  themselves  did  not  think  of  immediate 
marriage,  and  there  is  no  case  of  the  Levirate.  Ke- 
marriage  of  men  was  rare,  and  only  one  step-mother 
is  mentioned.3 

The  treatment  accorded  to  adultery  is  always 
a  good  test  of  the  position  of  woman  in  society. 
Adultery  in  Homer  is,  as  usual  in  early  societies, 
assimilated  to  theft,  and  is  reprehended  as  the  vio- 
lation of  a  property-right ;  reference  to  property- 
criteria  alone  enables  one  to  decide  what  was  meant 

where  universal  custom  of  wife-buying.  Such  an  interpretation 
would  make  ii,  52-53,  absurd.  The  csesural  emphasis  of  the 
passage  in  question  (ii,  132-133)  and  the  context  speak  for  the 
above  interpretation.  Also  cf.  L.  &  S.  sub  u  apotinein,"  and  viii, 
318  ff.  What  was  given  with  a  daughter  remained  hers  and  her 
children's  (cf.  p.  213  above) ;  it  is  possible  that  the  fines  had  some 
relation  with  such  gifts,  though  no  evidence  is  at  hand. 

1  ii,  135-136. 

1  Lippert,  II,  506-507. 

8  XXII,  477  ff;  V,  389. 


228  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

by  adultery  in  those  times.  The  Homeric  terms 
for  husband  and  wife  and  for  marriage 1  are  so 
broad  that  they  include  sexual  relation  in  general, 
combined  perhaps  with  actual  possession.  Thus 
adultery  proper  was  only  possible  in  the  case  of 
the  chief  wife,  the  wife  of  status,  from  whom  the 
line  of  succession  took  its  origin ;  only  in  that 
case  were  the  consequences  far-reaching,  demand- 
ing special  vengeance,  and  was  the  succession 
endangered.2 

Not  even  in  the  case  of  the  chief  wife's  unfaith- 
fulness was  the  husband  pitiless.  Vergil,  in  the 
light  of  the  stern  Koman  patriarchate,  drew  Helen 
in  dark  colours,3  but  the  Greek  poet  was  more  leni- 
ent. There  were  few  harsh  words  for  her  save  her 
own,  among  those  who  suffered  most  on  her  ac- 
count. All  the  anger  was  heaped  up  against  Paris, 
and  the  sentiment  was  "  to  avenge  the  longings 
and  groans  of  Helen."4  Menelaus  pardoned  her 
easily  when  once  material  reparation  had  been  ex- 
acted ;  even  Priam  and  Hector  were  ever  kind  to 
her,  though  the  rest  of  the  Trojans  at  times  blamed 
her  for  the  evils  of  the  siege.5  Moral  reprehension 
for  the  adultery  itself,  considered  from  the  stand- 
point of  what  we  regard  as  conjugal  rectitude,  was 
utterly  lacking.     The  blame  was  one  of  social  and 

i  Cf.  p.  219,  note  2  ;  III,  427  ;  XXIV,  763 ;  i,  36 ;  cf.  iv,  561-569. 

2  Cf.  iii,  303  ff. 

8  JEneid,  II,  575. 

4  III,  173  ff,  etc.  ;  cf.  242 ;  XIX,  325  ;  III,  351,  etc. ;  II,  356. 

6  iv,  274-275  ;  III,  164;  XXlV,  762  ff;  770. 


MARRIAGE   AND   THE  FAMILY  229 

economic  import,  for  Paris  violated  the  bond  of 
guest-friendship  and  alienated  his  host's  property.1 

Thus  the  act  is  regarded  elsewhere  in  Homer. 
The  plague  in  the  Greek  camp  had  no  significance 
beyond  injury  of  a  priest,  and  Chryses  was  easily 
appeased ;  he  took  no  thought  of  the  fact  that  his 
daughter  had  been  at  Agamemnon's  disposal  for 
some  time.  The  injured  Hephaestus,  when  he  had 
caught  the  offending  Ares  and  Aphrodite,  called 
to  the  gods,  "  Hither !  that  ye  may  look  upon  works 
laughable  and  not  seemly."  His  great  grievance 
was  the  contempt  which  his  lameness  brought 
from  Aphrodite ;  and  though  from  shame  the  fe- 
male divinities  avoided  the  sight  of  the  culprits, 
the  gods  rushed  in  and  regarded  it  as  wonderfully 
amusing  how  the  slow  and  lame  Hephaestus  had 
caught  the  swift  Ares,  on  the  whole  envying  Ares 
notwithstanding.  The  culprits  departed,  when  re- 
leased, in  some  embarrassment.2  The  gods  were 
uniformly  more  sensual  than  men,  here  as  else- 
where. The  anger  of  Proetus  toward  the  (falsely) 
accused  Bellerophon  was  the  anger  of  Mene- 
laus  toward  a  perfidious  guest,  and  the  "good 
mind"  with  which  Bellerophon  repelled  the  ad- 
vances of  this  Potiphar's  wife  refers  to  the  same 
line  of  thought.3 

These  examples  tend  to  prove  that  the  rule  of 
man  was  so  firm  that  he  did  not  need  to  guard  his 

1  III,  351  ff ;  cf.  p.  302  below. 

2  viii,  266  ff.  3  VI,  160  ff. 


230  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

property  with  the  relentless  savagery  so  common 
to  primitive  ages.  Men  did  not  mutilate  their 
wives,  or  render  them  hideous  in  any  way,  a  prac- 
tice met  with  even  in  modern  times.1  There  were 
no  Margaretes  in  those  days,  and  love-affairs  with 
other  women  did  not  often  disturb  domestic  tran- 
quillity, as  far  as  feeling  was  concerned.  Quarrels 
did  not  occur  over  isolated  amours  of  the  husband, 
except  where  material  advantage  or  the  wife's 
position  was  at  stake.2  In  consonance  with  patri- 
archal notions,  the  woman  was  expected  to  exer- 
cise far  more  self-restraint  than  the  man.  The 
ideal  for  the  woman  was  single-hearted  loyalty, 
as  developed  in  Andromache  and  Penelope,  and 
conspicuous  by  its  absence  in  Clytsernnestra.  The 
woman  who  best  satisfied  the  patriarch  was  the 
wife  (or  servant)  who  assumed  the  least  of  indi- 
vidual freedom  and  power  to  dispose  of  herself, 
knowing  that  she  was  really  but  the  property  of 
her  husband.  In  the  case  of  Clytsemnestra,  yield- 
ing came  only  after  long  persuasion,  for  at  first  she 
was  of  "  good  mind  "  ;  the  deeds  of  ^Egisthus  were 
called  shameful,  and  the  sanction  of  the  gods  was 
against  them  as  acts  of  violence.3  Faithfulness 
and  submission  were  the  prime  virtues  of  woman. 
Morals  were  matters  of  form,  as  well  in  marriage  as 
elsewhere,  coupled   with  little   inner   feeling,   and 

1  Cf.  Zangwill,  Children  of  the  Ghetto,  15. 

2  V,  70  ;  iv,  11-12;  etc.  j  cf.  IX,  449  ff;  XIX,  100;  i,  433. 
»  iii,  265-266  ;  i,  47. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  231 

still  resting  upon  the  plain  basis  of  economic  facts, 
and  upon  rights  assured  by  superior  power  and 
influence. 

It  will  be  noticed  in  connection  with  this  idea 
of  rights  versus  feeling  that  a  word  for  "adul- 
tery does  not  occur  in  Homer ;  all  we  have  in  the 
Homeric  vocabulary  to  imply  the  word  is  "fines 
for  adultery." 2  These  adultery-fines,  along  with  the 
exacting  of  vengeance  for  adultery,  make  still  more 
clear  the  Homeric  conception  of  the  matter.  Adul- 
tery was  a  violation  of  contract  with  respect  to  the 
quality  of  the  goods,  plus  encroachment  from  a  third 
party  upon  the  acquired  property-rights ;  the  first  was 
atoned  for  by  the  mutual  return  of  purchased  article 
and  price,  and  the  latter  by  fines  of  considerable  size. 
The  fines  due  from  Paris  were  collected  in  the  ruin  of 
his  family  and  city  and  in  direct  reprisal ;  since  he 
did  not  pay,  his  transgression  descended  in  its 
consequences  upon  his  community.  Thus  adultery- 
fines  seem  to  have  been  a  commutation  of  the  talion- 
punishment  or  some  other.2 

There  is  really  no  divorce  or  repudiation  in 
Homer's  story.3  The  closest  case  is  that  of  He- 
phaBstus's  threat ;  the  high  place  of  "  illegitimate  " 
children  in  the  house  made  it  unnecessary  for  dy- 
nastic reasons.  Moreover,  in  Homer,  all  women  are 
fruitful,  as  a  rule,  and  though  the  opposite  case  is 

1  viii,  332. 

2  viii,  314;  317  ff;  332  (cf.  269);  348;  II,  354-356;  IX,  338- 
339  ;  cf.  Ill,  286-291 ;  XXII,  114  ff. 

3  Westermarck,  523. 


232  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

hinted  at,1  there  was  no  blame  or  thought  of  repu- 
diation for  sterility.  All  these  difficulties,  like 
those  brought  by  Helen,  were  referred  to  the 
gods.2 

As  respects  incest,  we  find  cases  of  marriage 
between  mother  and  son,  brother  and  sister,  nephew 
and  aunt,  uncle  and  niece.3  No  blame  seems  to 
have  been  attachable  to  any  of  these  connections 
save  the  first,  which,  though  entered  into  uninten- 
tionally, was,  as  a  formal  sin,  terribly  punished. 
Here  we  should  notice  that  such  a  form  of  union  as 
the  first  named  is  abominable  both  to  the  "  genera- 
tion-grade "  system  4  of  the  matriarchate  and  to  the 
patriarchal  conceptions  of  over-closeness  in  union. 
(Edipus  was  pursued  by  the  Erinyes  of  his  mother, 
after  she,  in  despair,  had  committed  suicide  by 
hanging.5  This  case  was  aggravated  by  (uninten- 
tional) patricide.  As  for  fraternal  incest,  it  occurred 
only  among  the  gods  (as  did  fraternal  amours)  and 
in  the  home  of  the  isolated  de mi-god-Phoenician 
iEolus.6  This  refers  the  custom  to  the  past  and 
probably  to  the  matriarchate  at  once.  The  uncle- 
niece  union  was  of  like  type,  while  the  nephew- 
aunt  union,  repugnant  to  the  matriarchate,  is  found 
among    men    who    stood    for    genuine   patriarchs. 

1  iv,  12f£;xi,  249. 

2  III,  164;  i,  32  fE. 

8  xi,  271  ff ;  IV,  58-61 ;  viii,  306  ff;  x,  7 ;  XI,  223  ff ;  vii,  65  ff. 
*  Lippert,  II,  2  ff. 

5  xi,  271-280. 

6  x,  7  ;  cf.  Pietschraann,  237. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  233 

Perhaps  in  the  brother-sister  union,  found  only 
in  royal  houses,  a  motive  of  assuring  succession 
once  came  into  play.1  These  various  "  incestuous  " 
relations  seem  to  support  Westermarck's  theory  of 
"  propinquity."  2 

In  treating  of  children,  the  family,  and  succession, 
the  first  fact  one  notices  and  correlates  with  other 
ethnographical  data  is  the  importance  of  children. 
This  is  what  we  should  expect  in  the  pastoral  and 
agricultural  stages,  where  the  value  of  extra  workers 
far  more  than  compensates  for  the  expenses  and 
cares  of  early  rearing.  Infanticide  appears  in  but 
one  case,  and  that  among  the  gods,  where  a  deformed 
child  was  devoted  to  death  by  its  mother.3  Mar- 
riage was  contracted  largely  liberorum  causa  and 
the  gods  blessed  a  marriage  by  granting  numerous 
children ;  Priam  and  Niobe  were  especially  happy 
and  proud  while  their  children  lived.  The  loss  of 
children  was  a  terrible  affliction,  as  the  sequels  of 
these  cases  show,  and  a  curse  that  brought  down 
childlessness  was  most  cruel.4  The  wife  attained 
her  greatest  dignity  as  mother.  There  was  a  sort  of 
passion  for  offspring,  and  a  father  delighted  in  the 
children  prattling  about  his  knee  and  calling  him 
"  pappa."  A  mother  seems  to  have  loved  her  son  as 
much  as  she  did  her  husband,  or  more,  and  even 

1  Lippert,  II,  48 ;  for  these  various  distinctions  regarding  incest, 
see  II,  1-140;  505-555  passim. 

2  H.  M.,  258. 

8  XVIII,  395  ff;  viii,  311  ff. 

4  iv,  12;  etc.;  XXIV,  546;  602  ff;  IX, 455  ff. 


234  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

the  obsolete  infanticide  partook  something  of  the 
nature  of  exposure,  a  mitigated  form.1 

Illegitimate  2  children  had  scarcely  less  attention 
paid  to  them  than  legitimate;  they  might  not  be 
taken  care  of  by  the  father,  though  this  probably 
does  not  imply  the  alternative  of  exposure  or  death.3 
The  son  of  a  virgin  and  a  god  was  carefully  reared 
and  the  mother  married  well.4  The  illegitimate 
child,  moreover,  was  not  unfortunate  enough  to 
follow  entirely  the  slave-status  of  the  mother. 

The  relations  of  parents  and  children  were  very 
close  and  affectionate ;  Priam  attained  his  object 
with  Achilles  by  rousing  the  latter's  sympathy  for 
the  defenceless  old  father  at  home  ;  entreaty  by 
father  and  mother  and  children  is  a  leading  motive 
%/  in  the  poems.5  The  relations  of  affection  in  the 
royal  family  of  Ithaca  were  very  marked  and  strong, 
aside  from  any  matter  of  custom,  state,  or  dynasty ; 
kissing  and  caressing  were  not  unusual  between 
parents  and  children,  though  far  less  common  than 
among  the  Hebrews,  for  instance.6 

Of  the  infancy  of  the  child :  we  should  expect 

1  XIII,  659;  XXII,  424  ft;  486;  xxiv,  336  ff;  V,  408;  iv, 
817  ff;  cf.  Lippert,  I,  219. 

2  Of  course  the  terra  "  legitimate  "  and  its  opposite  cannot  be 
used  in  a  modern  sense ;  to  Homer  legitimate  children  were  those 
of  the  ceremonial  marriage. 

3  IV,  499-500;  V,  70;  XIII,  173-176;  iv,  12;  xiv,  202  ff; 
xv,  100  ff;  VIII,  283-284. 

*  XVI,  180  ff. 

6  XXIV,  486  ff;  XXII,  338;  etc. 

6  ii,  130  ff;  376;  iv,  703  ff;  xi,  202-207;  xvi,  187  ff;  etc.;  VI, 
474;  xvi,  190;  I,  361. 


MARRIAGE   AND    THE  FAMILY  235 

early  weaning,  though  it  is  not  mentioned,  because 
we  know  the  civilisation  was  one  of  flocks  and  herds  ; 
it  is  hard  to  accept  the  little  evidence  which  we  have 
concerning  the  food  of  children.1  It  is  certain  that 
some  of  the  mothers  nursed  their  own  children, 
though  we  find  many  nurses  mentioned  besides.2 
The  high  value  placed  upon  the  fecundity  of  women 
would  lead  them  to  shorten  periods  of  barrenness  as 
much  as  might  be  ; 3  hence  the  nurses.  The  period 
of  effective  maturity  in  the  child  would  seem  to  have 
come  comparatively  late,  judging  from  the  case  of 
Telemachus ;  instances  of  precocity  were  legendary.4 
x  Naming  was  usually  the  function  of  the  father, 
though  in  one  case  it  was  done  by  the  mother,  and 
once  by  the  mother's  father,  who  took  great  interest 
in  the  boy  (Odysseus)  and  made  him  gifts.5  Names 
were  regularly  derived  from  conditions  in  which  the 
father  was  placed  at  the  time  of  the  child's  birth  ; 
thus,  "  Astyanax,"  because  Hector  always  defended 
Ilion ;  "  Telemachus,"  because  Odysseus  "  fought 
afar,"  and  "Odysseus,"  because  of  the  feelings 
aroused  in  the  victims  of  his  grandfather's  highway 
robberies.6  Naming-customs  tell  for  the  patri- 
archal power,  as  do  the  universal  patronymics. 

1  See  p.  47  above. 

2  VI,  132;  xix,  354;  etc. 
8  Friedreich,  216. 

4  i,  296-297  ;  xi,  448  ;  xxi,  208  ;  xi,  311  ff. 

5  VI,  402 ;  cf.  patronymics  and  pride  in  them ;   xviii,  5  ;  xix, 
406  ff.    There  are  no  "  double  names,"  as  Lippert  (II,  352)  asserts. 

6  VI,  402-403    (cf.  XXII,    506-507) ;    xix,    399-412 ;    cf.    VI, 
252  ;  IX,  145  ;   562-564. 


236  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

All  children  were  desirable,  but  sons  indispen- 
sable, from  standpoints  of  property-inheritance,  dy- 
nasty, and  religion,  not  to  mention  affection.  Oaths 
were  taken  by  one's  son,  and  it  was  a  great  sorrow 
to  lose  a  son,  especially  if  he  were  about  to  marry.1 
It  may  be  remarked  here  that  religious  motives  for 
the  desire  of  sons  were  less  strong  than  analogies 
from  other  patriarchal  tribes  would  lead  one  to 
expect.  There  was  no  ancestor-worship  of  a  clearly 
defined  type,  no  postmortuary  sacrifices,  though  a 
son  was  eager  to  raise  a  tomb  to  a  famous  father.2 
But  property  and  dynasty  took  up  much  thought, 
and  ideas  on  these  two  subjects,  which  were  really 
one  and  the  same,  are  not  to  be  dismissed  without 
assigning  to  them  the  utmost  influence  upon  mar- 
riage and  the  family.  The  first  question  of  an 
absent  hero  was  concerning  the  integrity  of  his  pos- 
sessions and  the  prowess  of  his  son ;  "  easily  recog- 
nisable "  were  a  lucky  marriage  and  its  progeny.3 
Pride  of  race  and  of  ancestors'  deeds  were  paralleled 
only  by  pride  in  a  son's  good  qualities,  and  it  was  a 
great  comfort  to  have  a  sure  avenger  of  one's  death.4 
Also  in  those  troublous  periods  an  aged  man  needed 
the  support  and  protection  of  his  son,  and  if  he  was 
childless,  he  sometimes  adopted  a  defender.5  By 
the  strong  son  the  estate  was  preserved  and  the 

1  II,  "259-260  ;  XXIII,  222-223  ;   etc. 

2  ii,  222. 

3  V,  154  ff ;  xi,  492  ff ;  iv,  207  ff. 

*  XXII,  423  ff ;  xi,  457  ff  ;  492  ff  ;  i,  298  ff  ;  iii,  196  ff. 
6  IX,435ff;  492  ff. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  237 

glory  of  the  race,  as  well  as  the  ancestral  kingship, 
maintained ;  in  the  absence  of  the  strong  defender 
all  these  were  likely  to  dissolve  and  yield  before 
encroachment.1 

At  this  point  the  question  of  succession  natu- 
rally appears,  as  amply  corroborative  of  the  above- 
described  importance  of  sons.  The  subject  has  al- 
ready been  touched  upon  under  the  head  of  property  ; 
succession  was  regularly  filiation  in  the  male  line, 
as  is  proved  by  genealogies,  by  the  free  use  of  patro- 
nymics, etc.,2 — by  the  whole  patriarchal  setting  of 
the  poems.  Succession  also  emphasises  the  position 
of  the  chief  wife  —  it  was  her  children  who  inher- 
ited regularly,  though  not  exclusively.  The  very 
honourable  and  privileged  place  of  an  adopted  or 
illegitimate  son,  a  place  but  little  inferior  to  that  of 
the  regularly  inheriting  sons,  shows  that  for  him  too 
there  was  hope  of  inheritance.  We  find  one  direct 
case  of  a  slave-born  son  inheriting;3  but,  as  has  been 
said  above,  the  view  of  this  matter  is  somewhat 
obscured,  because  all  women  bear  sons,  as  a  rule, 
and  so  illustrations  of  the  alternative  case  are  not  at 
hand.  It  is  certain  that  the  adopted  sons,  and 
more  often,  the  nothoi,  were  frequently  squires  to 
the  inheriting  sons,  yet  they  were  little  distinguished 
from  them,  and  it  is  hard  to  see  how  a  king  with  no 


1  XXIV,  486  ff ;  case  in  Ithaca ;  xi,  495  ff. 

2  11,    101  ff;  VI,  145  ff;    XIII,  450-452;    XIV,    113ff;    XX, 
214  ff;  xxiv,  514-515  ;  I,  1,  etc. ;  honour  in  patronymics,  X,  68-69, 

3  xiv,  200  ff. 


238  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

legitimate  male  heirs  could  be  so  content  with  his 
position  unless  his  able  and  honoured  nothos  was 
ready  to  support  the  house.1  However  this  may  be, 
it  must  still  be  recognised  that  the  bonds  of  real 
blood-kinship  were  extremely  strong,  so  much  so 
that  one  got  no  chance  to  adopt  a  son  except  in  the 
person  of  an  outcast  from  his  own  kin;2  in  spite 
of  all  second-choices  for  the  succession,  the  first 
choice  was  ever  and  always  the  son  of  the  status- 
union. 

Primogeniture  was  not  well-defined,  though  the 
tendency  lay  in  that  direction ;  Zeus,  Poseidon,  and 
Hades  divided  the  universe  by  lot ;  but  Zeus,  as  the 
oldest,  did  not  fail  to  impress  that  fact.3  We  also 
find  the  cadet  going  off  fortune-hunting.  Struggles 
toward  the  idea  of  primogeniture  appear  in  Homer  : 
attempts  to  escape  inheritance-complications  by 
assigning  a  king  but  one  son,  or  by  exalting  the 
prowess  and  hence  the  power  of  the  oldest  brother ; 4 
the  latter  being  indeed  the  natural  advantage  of  the 
first-born.  The  eldest  son  of  Alcinous  was  recog- 
nised as  host  by  Odysseus ;  this  son,  as  well  as  the 
oldest  (living)  son  of  Nestor,  sat  beside  the  father 
on  state-occasions.     In  general,  however,  there  was 

1  XI,  102  ff;  XVI,  737  ff;  iv,  11. 

2  IX,  478  ff  ;  XXIII,  85-90. 

3  XIX,  100  ff;  XV,  165;  185  ff;  XIII,  355;  Gladstone  thinks 
that  Paris  was  the  oldest  son  of  Priam,  but  that  Hector  by  his 
military  prowess  was  likely  to  win  the  succession.   J.  M.,  223-226. 

*  XIV,  119 ff;  XXIV,  538 ff ;  iii,  306;  xvi,  117 ff ;  iv,  199 ff;  see 
preceding  note. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE   FAMILY  239 

little  question  of  the  sons'  ages ;  they  were  expected 
to  settle  down  in  the  ancestral  home  and  co-operate 
in  its  defence.1  Succession  in  the  case  of  several 
sons,  adopted,  legitimate,  or  illegitimate,  is  none  too 
clear  from  the  evidence  we  possess ;  the  most  that 
can  be  said,  is  that  the  succession  was  male  filiation 
through  the  head-wife,  i.  e.,  the  wife  of  ceremonial 
purchase,  in  a  normal  state  of  the  case.  We  find 
that  a  man  could  give  certain  things  away  as  he 
grew  old,  but  there  is  no  idea  of  testament  as  such. 
There  is,  however,  one  isolated  case  which  may 
throw  some  light  upon  the  subject,  although  the 
instance  is  that  of  an  only  son,  Telemachus.  It  is 
the  most  complete  case  in  Homer.  The  story  has 
been  told  in  part,  above ;  the  essentials  referring  to 
succession  are  as  follows.  The  aged  king  of  Ithaca 
had  resigned  the  government  of  the  country,  as  well 
as  the  management  of  the  estate,  into  the  strong 
son's  hands,  while  he  and  his  wife  were  cared  for  at 
the  palace.2  Occasion  arising,  the  son  departed  for 
war,  seemingly  making  no  provision  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  country,  and  leaving  his  wife  as  regent 
over  his  estate  pending  the  majority,  that  is,  the 
manhood,  in  strength  of  body  and  mind,  of  his 
infant  son.  The  next  scene  is  sixteen  years  later, 
and  is  marked  by  the  incursion  of  a  lawless  element, 
who  drove  off  old  Laertes,  probably  by  wounding  his 
dignity,  and  settled   down  to  win   the  supposedly 

1  viii,  207  ff ;  iii,  39  ;  vii,  170-171  ;  VI,  242  ft;  iii,  412 ff. 

2  xviii,  267  ff, 


240  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

dead  king's  widow.  The  son  was  yet  young,  and 
could  do  nothing.1  This  condition  of  affairs  lasted 
for  four  years,  until  the  son,  hastened  to  maturity 
of  mind  by  the  misery  of  his  mother  and  the  de- 
struction of  his  estate,  bethought  himself  of  revenge. 
The  son's  power  in  the  house  is  described  above; 
and  being  of  the  "kingly  stock,"  his  prestige  was 
great  among  the  people,  so  that  all  he  needed  was 
force  to  attain  his  father's  place  as  king.2  Left  un- 
disturbed in  his  claims,  he  would  have  quietly 
succeeded  his  father  as  head  of  house  and  land. 

The  Suitors'  interference  was  plainly  one  of  un- 
bridled force;  their  acts  were  lawless,  and  only 
their  organisation  and  arms  supported  them  against 
the  enmity  of  the  people ;  therefore  one  must  regard 
their  doings  as  abnormal  with  respect  to  customs  of 
the  time,  though  force  was  a  common  enough  means 
in  those  days.3  Yet  their  boasts  and  hopes  were  not 
absolutely  impossible  of  fulfilment,  though  proved 
empty  in  the  sequel;  so  they  enable  one  to  under- 
stand the  normal  kingship  and  succession.  The 
Suitors  hoped  to  gain  the  kingship  along  with  the 
dead  king's  widow,  though  they  recognised  her  son's 
"  ancestral  right "  to  rule.  They  hoped  against  it, 
and  said  that  the  question  "  lay  on  the  knees  of  the 
gods."  They  also  proposed,  in  addition  to  the  sub- 
version of  the  succession  to  royal  honour,  to  murder 

1  ii,  60-61. 

2  ii,  49 ;  81  If ;  xix,  124 ;  xvi,  401. 

8  ii,  229  ff ;  cf .  XXIV,  485  ff ;  etc,     . 


MARRIAGE  AND    THE  FAMILY  241 

the  son  and  succeed  to  the  ancestral  estate.1  All 
these  doings  were  mere  tours  de  force,  like  those  of 
iEgisthus.  Telemachus  appealed  to  the  gods,  the 
conservers  of  the  themistes,  and  under  their  sanc- 
tion he  was  avenged.  The  aged  king  was  relieved 
from  his  hardships,  and  Odysseus  ruled  "  when  he 
had  killed  the  Suitors,"  2  i.  e.,  when  he  had  re-estab- 
lished himself  primus  inter  pares. 

The  conclusions  from  this  story  support  the  gen- 
eral argument  advanced  above  with  respect  to  suc- 
cession. First,  we  find  the  case  of  the  "  abdication  " 
of  the  weak  old  king,  and  immediately  the  thought 
is  suggested  —  how  much  personal  vigour  counted, 
and  how  comparatively  little  the  state-organisation. 
Next,  we  notice  the  regency  and  the  age  of  succes- 
sion of  the  son,  entirely  a  matter  of  his  ability  to 
succeed.  Succession  to  the  estate  implied  readiness 
to  take  up  the  royal  prerogatives  ; 3  throughout,  the 
two  ideas  were  hardly  separable,  and  the  discussion 
must  be  taken  up  later  from  the  side  of  the  state. 
How  great  a  role  physical  force  played  here  may  be 
seen  as  well  from  the  standpoint  of  the  immature 
as  from  that  of  the  aged  householder. 

With  respect  to  the  inheritance  of  the  paternal 
estate,  it  will  be  noticed  that  filiation  was  so  strong 
that  the  Suitors  hoped  to  divide  the  estate  only  on 
condition  of  the  heir's  death;  also  that  there  was  no 
thought  of  the  grandsire's  claims,  nor  of  those  of 

1  xxii,  49  ff ;  i,  386-387  ;  400 ;  ii,  331  ff ;  iv,  669  ft. 

2  xxiv,  482  fE.  8  ii,  14,  etc. 

16 


242  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

any  other  relative.  The  family,  Telemachus  said, 
was  unfortunate  because  the  gods  gave  but  one  son 
in  each  generation,  and  so  he  had  no  male  relatives 
(agnates)  to  aid  him.  Throughout,  the  troubles  of 
Telemachus  were  property-troubles  "in  great  part ;  in- 
deed he  exclaims  that  they  are  worse  than  the  loss 
of  Odysseus.1  Yet  succession  in  the  ancestral  estate 
was  tolerably  well  assured  to  the  son,  even  in  times 
of  open  violence. 

Succession  to  the  kingship  seems  to  have  been 
less  sure.  What  we  should  gain  from  the  evi- 
dence is,  that,  under  normal  conditions,  son  suc- 
ceeded father  quietly  and  easily.  Even  in  a  time 
of  lawless  anarchy,  the  kingly  descent  stood  for 
much  to  Telemachus,  especially  as  Odysseus  was  so 
good  and  kind  a  king.2  The  right  of  such  succession 
seems  to  have  been  firmly  implanted  in  the  condi- 
tions of  the  time,  and  clearly  recognised  in  the  minds 
of  the  people,  and  only  force  could  alter  it.  The 
only  way  to  pervert  the  regular  succession  was  to 
add  to  force  a  plausible  pretension ;  this  accounts 
for  the  hope  of  the  royal  power  going  with  the 
king's  widow.  The  Suitors'  claims  were  all  the 
stronger  because,  the  family  being  restricted  to  one 
child  in  each  generation,  no  real  line  of  agnates 
existed ;  the  incapacity  of  Laertes  removed  him  at 
once  from  any  consideration. 

The  heirship  of  males,  therefore,  in  spite  of 
variations,  was  firmly  rooted,  and  reciprocally  aided 

1  xvi,  115ff;  ii,  48.  2  ii,  230  ff. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  243 

and  was  aided  by  the  patriarchal  organisation. 
Female  inheritance  is  not  mentioned.  To  the 
patriarchal  organisation  of  society,  woman  is  not  a 
person,  but  a  thing,  or,  to  put  it  more  mildly,  a 
perpetual  minor.  Hence,  she  is  not  a  fitting  vehicle 
for  the  transmission  of  goods  and  estates.  While 
she  was  not  at  all  the  mere  u  ploughed  field," 1 
the  mere  "  retort  for  Homunculus,"  yet  she  did  not 
possess  before  the  Homeric  law  of  custom,  excluding 
the  exceptions  mentioned,  any  legal  status.  She 
might  be  regent  when  there  was  no  one  else ;  but  a 
protector  was  given  her,  we  find,2  and  one  is  inclined 
to  believe  that  such  an  arrangement  was  the  typical 
one.  The  chances  of  royal  succession  acquired  by 
marrying  the  king's  widow  were  not  connected  with 
the  question  of  woman's  succession ;  the  matter  was, 
as  before  remarked,  a  popular  pretension,  depending 
upon  association  of  ideas.  The  aspirant  would  in 
such  a  case  hold  the  most  characteristic  possessions 
of  the  dead  king :  wife,  and,  possibly,  estate.  It  was 
woman's  lot  to  be  taken  away  and  identified  with 
another  family  in  a  sort  of  gentile-exogamy;  she 
was  not  thought  of  as  a  means  of  transmitting 
ancestral  power  at  home.  The  woman  was  by 
predestination  the  child-bearer  of  another  gens  or 
family ;  and  this,  her  destiny,  was  perfectly  in  con- 
sonance with  the  patriarchal  filiation.  Even  if  the 
daughter's  son  was  loved  and  petted  by  the  maternal 

1  Cf.  Sophocles,  (Ed.  Tyr.,  1256. 

2  ii,  226  227  ;  iii,  267  ff J  cf.  xi,  68. 


246  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

with  some  idea  of  a  tribal  union  have  in  Homer  a 
sense  vaguely,  if  at  all,  specialised.  They  mean  a 
"body"  (of  men  or  things).1  In  a  few  cases  only 
do  we  find  phylon  or  phretre  used  in  a  way  which 
implies  some  organisation ;  in  one  case  the  army 
was  arranged  by  pkretrai  in  battle,  to  find  who 
of  the  leaders  and  men  were  cowardly  and  who 
were  brave,  for  they  would  thus  fight  "  by  them- 
selves." 2  This  was  regarded  as  a  fine  piece  of  strat- 
egy. There  is  also  a  case  of  a  murder  "  within  the 
tribe,"  where  the  murderer  had  to  flee  for  his  life 
from  the  brothers  and  relations  of  the  slain  man.3 
We  further  find  that  the  Ehodians  were  divided 
into  three  divisions,  who  lived  "  by  tribes."  4  This 
evidence  is  very  scattering ;  no  real  organisation  is 
witnessed.  That  there  was  a  certain  tribal  spirit, 
however,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  tribesmen  could 
fight  better  together,  and  that  a  violation  of  the 
group-peace  was  punished  by  death  or  exile.  The 
feeling  for  the  tribal  unity  is  witnessed  also  by  the 
fact  that  one  who  desired  internal  warfare  was  put 
beyond  the  boundary  of  the  tribal  brotherhood, 
themistes,  and  "  hearth."  Here  we  find  fire  the 
symbol  of  brotherhood.5 

There  was  a  strong  feeling  for  one's  own  people 

1  II,  459 ;  469 ;  XI,  595  ;  XII,  330 ;  XIII,  533  ;  XIV,  361 ;  XV, 
54;  vii,  206;  viii,  481  ;  xiv,  73;  181. 

2  II,  360  ff ;  cf .  802-806. 


xv, 


272  ff. 


4  II,  655 ;  668 ;  cf.  Seymour,  note  to  II,  655. 
6  IX,  63-64 ;  cf.  Lippert,  I,  259  ff  et  al. 


MARRIAGE  AND   THE  FAMILY  247 


—  a  developed  blood-bond  which  opened  out  into 
self-sacrificing  and  ardent  patriotism.1  Naegelsbach 
considers  the  phretre  as  intermediate  between  the 
family  and  the  state  ; 2  from  direct  evidence  it  is 
hard  to  say  what  it  was  in  Homer's  time.  But 
the  condition  of  the  patriarchate  indicates  that  fam- 
ily power  was  rapidly  crumbling  under  adverse  en- 
vironment,3 and  it  is  likely  that  the  former  tribal 
unions  were  amalgamating  and  adapting  themselves 
into  more  highly  developed  political  forms.  Feel- 
ings based  on  the  old  bond  of  blood  were  passing 
away,  as  is  evidenced  in  the  treatment  of  suppliants 
and  guests,  and  restricted  group-life,  with  its  special 
totems  and  blood-kinship,  was  a  thing  of  the  past. 
It  was  evolving  into  the  more  developed  form  of 
state  and  classes. 

1  XII,  243  ;  iv,  522 ;  xiii,  354*.        «S^ 

■  H.  T.,  275.      „ — — • 

8  Cf.  Lippert,  II,  ch.  12;  pp.  505  ff. 


it 


t 


/ 


CHAPTEE  VI 
GOVERNMENT,   CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC. 

THE  state  is  in  origin  a  product  of  war  and  exists 
primarily  as  an  enforced  peace  between  con- 
querors and  conquered.  It  carries  over  into  con- 
ditions of  peace  the  discipline  of  war,  and  maintains 
it  for  the  sake  of  exploiting  the  possessions  and 
persons  of  the  conquered.1  The  state  is  therefore  a 
wider  organisation  than  that  based  upon  the  patri- 
archal power,  inasmuch  as  it  includes  heterogeneous 
tribal  or  gentile  elements  ;  but  it  is,  in  its  prelimi- 
nary forms,  founded  upon  the  groundwork  of  the 
family  system  of  patria  potestas.  The  concentra- 
tion of  power  in  the  single  hand,  a  condition  so 
essential  for  successful  war,  was  that  characteristic 
of  the  patriarchate  which  made  possible  the  rise  of 
the  state. 

The  Greeks  of  Homer's  time  had  not  traversed 
many  stages  of  state-development ;  they  were  as  yet 
in  transition  from  a  system  based  upon  family  and 
gens  to  one  based  upon  tribe  or  nation. 

The  evolution  of  the  patriarchate  into  the  state 
turns  upon  the  extension  of   the   peace-bond.     Of 

1  Of  course,  conquest  presupposes  some  antecedent  discipline. 
Cf.  Lippert,  II,  555  f£ ;  Gumplowicz,  Soc.  Ill,  art.  2,  1 14  ff  ;  Rassk. 
157-263. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     249 

the  patriarchate  pure  and  simple,  the  only  Homeric 
examples  are  found  among  types  of  crude  and  bar- 
barous tribes.  The  Cyclopes  had  neither  assembly 
nor  hereditary  precedents  and  modes  of  procedure  ; 
each  ruled  his  own  wives  and  children,  and  paid  no 
attention  to  the  others.  There  were  no  kings,  no 
classes,  —  no  differentiation  in  the  elements  of  pop- 
ulation ;  the  peace-bond  was  limited  to  the  imme- 
diate family  group.  Only  this  narrow  syngenetic 
sentiment1  kept  the  society  from  being  entirely 
atomistic.2 

This  state  of  affairs  was  to  the  Greeks  a  mark  of 
an  extremely  low  culture,  connected  with  cannibal- 
ism, lack  of  religion,  and  other  savage  character- 
istics. The  keeping  of  the  peace,  in  Homer's  own 
society,  was  no  longer  a  family  affair,  nor  was  it  as 
yet  regularly  an  inter-tribal  relation.  Peace  was 
tolerably  well  assured  between  the  gentile  and 
ethnic  elements  which  were  united  beneath  the 
sway  of  one  king ;  and  this  king  was  the  head  of  a 
ruling  patriarchal  family.  The  Greek  system  seems, 
roughly  speaking,  to  consist  in  the  superposition  of 
a  patriarchal  family  upon  a  group  of  inferiors.3 

It  is  not  easy  to  define  the  constituents  and  ori- 
gins of  this  inferior  group.     From  the  evidence  of 

1  Syngenism  is  a  neat  term  used  by  Gumplowicz  (Kassk.,  238  ff ; 
cf.  Rechts.  u.  Social.,  74  ff)  for  the  tolerant  or  kindly  feeling 
which  an  individual  entertains  towards  the  fellow-members  of  his 
own  societal  group. 

2  ix,  106  ff;  cf.  Letourneau,  Polit.,  30. 
8  Cf.  Letourneau,  Prop.,  236. 


250  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

the  chapters  which  have  preceded  the  present  one, 
it  is  clear  that  the  Homeric  Greeks  had  long  lived 
nnder  such  economic  conditions  as  support  the 
patriarchate  and  its  institutions.  In  many  ways  it 
is  likely  that  the  life  of  the  Greek  ruling  families, 
which  occupies  so  large  a  share  of  Homer's  atten- 
tion, was  the  life  of  the  descendants  of  nomad 
tribes,  which  had  settled  in  Greece  at  an  earlier 
period.  On  the  analogy  of  other  state-formations 
we  should  then  expect  the  lower  classes  to  be  sub- 
ject tribal  elements,1  held  under  conditions  border- 
ing upon  servitude.  This,  however,  is  not  clearly 
the  case  in  Homer. 

In  the  amalgamation  of  heterogeneous  ethnic  ele- 
ments, there  are  various  barriers  to  be  done  away 
with.  Amalgamation  is  complete  only  after  an 
approximate  similarity  of  speech,  religion,  and 
mores  2  has  been  developed ;  when  such  an  evo- 
lution has  taken  place,  intermarriage  quickly  re- 
moves ethnic  barriers,  the  heterogeneous  becomes 
homogeneous,  and  the  united  strength  of  the  amal- 
gamated elements  is  directed  outward  toward  the 
conquest  of  other  tribes  or  nations.3  To  get  the 
proper  setting  for  the  study  of  Homeric  govern- 
ment and  classes,  it  may  be  said  preliminarily  that 
between  the  upper  and  lower  elements  in  Homeric 

1  Gumplowicz,  Soc.  Ill,  art.  2,  114ff ;  Rassk.  157  ff. 

2  The  term  mores  is  used  to  cover  the  "  customs,  ideas,  habits 
of  thought  and  standards  which  are  current  in  a  human  group" 
(Sumner). 

8  Gumplowicz,  Rassk.,  226  ff ;  Soc.  u.  Pol.,  art.  27,  p.  80. 


GOVERNMENT,   CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.     251 

society,  speech  and  religion  were  common,1  but  that 
certain  mores  were  diverse,  and  that  intermarriage 
was  not  as  yet  practised.  The  society  was  not 
internally  strong  and  homogeneous  enough  reg- 
ularly to  employ  combined  strength  for  external 
undertakings,  or  to  engage  in  wars  of  subjugation. 
After  considering  the  detailed  evidence,  it  may  be 
possible  to  define  more  exactly  the  form  of  the 
Homeric  state. 

In  an  age  of  violence,  power  regularly  falls  into 
the  strong  hand.  Amidst  conditions  of  insecurity 
submission  to  power  becomes  a  sort  of  insurance ; 
the  endurance  of  periodic  small  losses  in  the  shape 
of  exactions  and  dues  becomes  a  means  of  avoiding 
utter  loss  and  ruin.  So  lives  and  goods  are  com- 
mended to  the  strength  which  is  able  to  afford  pro- 
tection,2 unless,  of  course,  they  fall  directly  beneath 
such  power,  through  conquest  by  it.  Whether  the 
power  originally  resides  in  a  patriarchal  family  or 
in  a  person,  it  tends  to  run  out  into  monarchy  pure 
and  simple. 

Traditions  of  monarchy  were  strong  among  the 
Homeric  Greeks ;  to  them  monarchy  was  a  symbol 
of  culture  and  good  discipline,  in  which  they  thor- 
oughly believed.  "  Not  good  is  the  rule  of  many  ; 
let  one  be  ruler,  one  be  king,  to  whom  the  son  of 
Kronos  has  given  it."  3     Homer's  heroes  hated  an- 

i  Cf.  Leaf,  174. 

2  Cf.  case  of  Middle  Ages  (Sumner,  U.  L.). 

8  II,  203-205. 


252  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

archy  and  knew  the  value  of  discipline  and  good 
order.  This  is  nowhere  more  clearly  shown  than  in 
the  powers  delegated  to  the  king  in  war. 

The  Homeric  king  was  pre-eminently  a  war-chief ; 
he  performed,  upon  the  field  of  battle,  to  which  he 
led  his  nation,  the  most  conspicuous  feats  of  brav- 
ery and  military  skill,  quite  eclipsing  any  deeds  of 
the  common  soldiery.  Because  of  his  honoured  posi- 
tion, he  was  expected  to  distinguish  himself  and 
his  nation.  Military  glory  was  so  much  worshipped 
that  a  successful  fighter  gained  a  certain  claim  to 
the  throne.1  In  short,  the  condition  of  physical 
and  mental  power  was  a  sine  qua  non  of  the 
Homeric  kingship.2  Boys  and  old  men  were 
encroached  upon,  and  an  absent  king  re-established 
his  rule  by  bloodshed  and  the  exhibition  of  actual 
power,  that  is,  in  a  sense,  he  had  to  re-conquer  his 
kingdom. 

The  king  must  not  only  secure  victory  without, 
but  discipline  and  peace  within ;  under  such  internal 
conditions  alone  could  defensive  and  offensive  un- 
dertakings come  to  a  successful  conclusion.  Thus 
the  king  came  to  be  the  preserver  of  the  themistes, 
the  guardian  of  those  social  customs  and  guarantees 
which  the  experience  of  preceding  generations  had 
evolved  as  rules  of  proper  living.3  The  king,  as 
the  most  powerful  member  of  the  society,  is  to  be 

1  Cf.  pp.  196  ff  above ;  XII,  313  ff. 

2  Cf.  iv,  63-64  ;   xiii,  222-223  ;   xxiv,  253. 
8  II,  206  ;   IX,  97-102  ;  156 ;  xix,  111. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.     253 

regarded  as,  in  a  certain  sense,  the  supreme  judge. 
He  was  also  ex  officio  chairman  or  president  of  the 
assembly  and  council.  Thus  in  war  and  peace  the 
king  was  the  guardian  of  the  social  bond  and  order. 
Also  from  the  patriarchal  organisation  of  the  family- 
he  took  over  into  the  state  the  function  of  head- 
sacrificer,  carrying  with  him  ever  a  sacrificial  knife, 
which  marked  him  as  the  performer  of  public 
sacrifice.1 

The  king  was  thus  the  head  of  the  state,  and  the 
people  were  "  given  over "  to  him.  The  position 
was  one  of  power  and  also  of  duties  and  responsi- 
bilities ;  besides  the  care  of  the  people  and  their 
interests,  he  supervised  public  works,  entertained 
publicly,  and,  if  he  was  a  good  king,  took  a  fatherly 
interest  in  his  subjects.2 

The  position  was,  of  course,  one  of  great  honour 
and  emolument,  and  to  be  king  was  great  fortune ; 
"  speedily  one's  house  grows  rich  and  himself  more 
highly  honoured."  3  The  king  was  granted  a  rich 
piece  of  ground,  which  his  subjects  probably  tilled 
for  him ;  he  profited  most  in  booty-raids,  and,  in 
addition,  received  feasts  and  gifts  from  his  people.4 
All  these  services  they  were  very  glad  to  render  in 

1   III,  271-272. 
**  II,  25  ;  ix,  332  ;  x,  273  ;  429  ff  ;  xix,  109  ff;  cf.  VI,  355  ff ;  XXI, 
444-457;   IV,  338  ff  ;   385  ff  ;   viii,  38  ff;    cf.  XVII,  577  ;   iv,  690- 
693  ;  v,  8-12 ;  xix,  109  ff ;  xxiii,  281-284. 

8  i,  390-393  ;  cf.  XXIV,  543-545  ;  xi,  483-485. 

4  See  pp.  193  ff  above  ;  cf.  XXIV,  449  ;  IX,  155  (cf.  120  ff)  ;  iii, 
480  ;  vi,  300  ff  ;   x,  40-42  ;  xi,  185-187  ;  xxiii,  357-358. 


"■■ 


254  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

return  for  security  and  protection,  as  well  as  for  the 
assurance  of  success  in  raids  under  a  great  fighter. 

The  king  had  considerable  direct  power  over  the 
life  of  the  people.  They  avoided  his  rage;  he 
had  the  power  of  banishment,  and  in  war-time,  of 
course,  the  power  of  life  and  death.  It  is  unlikely 
that  any  such  power  was  formally  delegated  to  him 
in  time  of  peace ;  that,  however,  would  not  prevent 
his  assuming  such  power,  as  any  man  would,  pro- 
vided the  avengers  of  blood  were  too  weak  to  inspire 
fear  of  consequences.1  Certain  cities,  acquired  prob- 
ably in  war,  he  could  destroy  or  turn  over  to  another 
without  consulting  any  one.2  Hospitality  given  by 
a  king  was  often  paid  for  by  taxing  the  people ;  the 
king  might  seize  and  hold  the  property  of  an  absent 
subject,  and  do  other  acts  of  violence.3  He  might, 
without  ceremony,  order  a  requisition  of  gifts  for  a 
guest,  and  by  his  royal  power  he  could  save  a  man 
from  the  anger  of  the  people.4  The  king  might  act 
with  extreme  injustice,  though  he  seldom  did ;  Laom- 
edon  sent  off  his  (divine)  workmen  unpaid  and  with 
threats  of  slavery  and  mutilation.5 

The  value  of  the  king  to  the  people  was  the  value 
of  strength  and  discipline  in  times  of  violence.  The 
question  of  royal  succession  has  been  discussed  above. 

1  XXIV,  237  ff;  VI,  158-159;  x,  429  ff;  cf.  pp.  283  ff  below. 

2  IX,  149;  483-484;  iv,  174-177. 

3  xiii,  14-15;  xix,  197-198;  xi,  287  ff;  xv,  230  ff;  cf.  iv,  690- 
692. 

4  viii,  389-399 ;  xi,  346  ff  ;  xvi,  424  ff. 
6  XXI,  444-457. 


GOVERNMENT,   CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     255 

To  envisage  the  matter  from  the  political  standpoint, 
it  is  only  necessary  to  recall  the  fact  that  the  king 
owed  his  tenure  to  his  ability  to  conquer  without, 
and  keep  peace  within,  the  group.  Hence  a  stoppage 
of  state-functions  and  a  popular  discontent  under  the 
rule  of  the  very  old  or  of  the  immature.1 

Kings  were  under  the  particular  care  of  Zeus,  from 
whom  they  gained  their  power  and  authority.2  They 
seem  to  have  had  attached  to  their  persons  certain 
personal  emblems  or  symbols  of  their  power ;  e.  g.,  the 
colour  purple  was  identified  chiefly  with  royal  robes 
and  possessions.3  The  sceptre  was  the  great  symbol 
of  real  or  delegated  kingly  power,  and  with  its  posses- 
sion went  a  share  of  royal  dignity.4  It  was  employed 
in  its  primitive  use  as  a  staff,  for  striking  and  for  sup- 
port ;  oaths  of  kings  were  taken  upon  this  emblem  of 
their  power,  and,  in  the  assembly,  the  possession  of 
the  sceptre  was  a  symbol  of  the  king's  permission  to 
speak.6  The  king  also  occupied  a  special  seat  in  the 
assembly ;  further,  he  had,  attached  to  his  person, 
certain  officers  (heralds),  whose  presence  generally 
indicates  some  public  function.6 

1  ii,  25  ff ;  cf.  Westermarck,  232. 

2  I,  176;  279;  etc. 

8  Cf.  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  111,38-63  passim;  IV,  141  ff : 
VIII,  221  ;  X,  133. 

*  I,  279  ;  II,  206  ;  VT,  159 ;  VII,  277  ;  IX,  38  ;  99  ;  XIV,  93 ; 
XVIII,  557  ;  ii,  231  ;  xi,  91  (cf.  144)  ;  569-570. 

6  II,  199;  265;  XIV,  457;  XVIII,  416;  xiii,  437;  xviii,  103; 
VII,  411-412;  X,  321  ff ;  I,  245;  II,  279;  III,  218;  XVIII,  505- 
506 ;  XXIII,  568  ;  ii,  37. 

6  ii,  14 ;  cf.  p.  274  below. 


256  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

The  several  duties  and  powers  of  the  king  will 
appear  under  various  heads  below.  The  monarch 
who  has  been  thus  far  described  was  the  ruler  of  a 
comparatively  small  state,  the  head  of  a  governing 
patriarchal  family.  There  was,  however,  a  more 
powerful  king,  the  head  and  leader  of  a  sort  of  tem- 
porary Pan-Hellenic  League,  the  Trojan  Expedition.1 

It  is  not  conceivable  that  the  functions  of  this  king 
of  confederated  forces  should  differ  much  from  those 
of  the  ordinary  king.  The  relation  of  Agamemnon 
to  his  sub-chiefs  was,  in  general,  the  same  as  that  of 
an  ordinary  king  to  the  chief  men  of  his  state ;  the 
same  forms  and  theories  of  the  kingship  prevailed. 
There  was,  however,  this  point  of  difference;  the 
confederation  was  apparently  founded  upon  the  voli- 
tion of  its  separate  members,  and  not  upon  coercion 
by  the  superior  force  or  absolute  power  of  a  chief. 
The  head-king  of  the  expedition  was  the  ruler  over 
the  greatest  contingent,  and  the  person  most  deeply 
interested  in  the  success  of  the  enterprise ;  but  his 
dignity  and  power  were  not  such  as  to  quell  by  force 
sub-chiefs  superior  in  personal  strength  and  only 
slightly  inferior  in  number  of  retainers.2  Therefore 
we  should  expect  that  the  council  and  assembly 
would  have,  if  anything,  more  freedom  of  expression 
than  in  time  of  peace,  and  that  the  support  of  Aga- 
memnon's headship  would  be  strong  and  enthusi- 
astic in  proportion  to  his  success  and  to  the  weight 

1  Cf.  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  III,  12-13. 

2  I,  281 ;  II,  577  ;  cf.  817;  II,  568;  602;  685. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     257 

of  the  motives  of  confederation.  The  kingship  of 
Agamemnon  would  therefore  approach  the  elective 
type.1 

The  motives  of  confederation,  however,  were  strong 
ones,  and,  coupled  with  the  great  respect  for  dis- 
cipline, these  motives  led  to  the  exaltation  of  the 
war-chiefs  power.  For  the  sake  of  the  enterprise 
embarked  upon,  the  many  faults  of  the  king  and  his 
actual  tyranny  were  quietly  endured.  Agamemnon 
was  primarily  the  war-chief,  with  the  inevitable 
sternness  of  a  military  discipline  to  uphold ;  hence,  he 
possessed  the  power  of  life  and  death  over  the  whole 
of  the  common  soldiery,  at  least.2  In  battle,  the 
king  must  appear  the  bravest,  and  in  the  games  the 
most  skilful,  even  if  such  pre-eminence  were  granted 
without  trial,  by  courtesy;  if  he  should  flee  from 
battle,  the  rest  would  be  discouraged.  The  success 
of  the  confederated  arms  must  be  ever  on  his  mind, 
and  he  must,  by  physical  exertion  and  good  strategy, 
promote  the  common  aims  ;  he  must  be  both  king 
and  warrior.3  Naturally  the  public  functions  of 
sacrifice  and  purification,4  as  well  as  the  entertain- 
ment of  the  sub-chiefs,  devolved  upon  the  head  of 
the  league. 

Connected  with  these  extraordinary  duties  and 
responsibilities  were  wider  prerogatives  and  richer 

1  Letourneau,  Polit.,  44-52;  417. 

2  II,  346  ;  357-359  ;  cf.  I,  325. 

3  VII,  180;  XXIII,  890-891;  XVI,  659-660;  II,  24-25;  X, 
88  ff ;  XIV,  50  ;  105-106  ;  cf.  I,  342  ff ;  III,  179. 

4  I,  308  ff;  II,  402;  III,  105  ff;  271-272  ;  VII,  313  ff  ;  IX,  69  ff. 

17 


258  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

rewards.  The  position  of  such  a  king  as  Agamemnon 
was  most  fortunate,  due  to  a  kindly  daimon's  patron- 
age ;  as  first  man  in  the  state,  he  received  the  first  and 
greatest  share  of  all  booty,  whether  it  was  taken 
under  his  own  leadership  or  not,  and  his  wealth 
was  ever  increasing.1  As  head  of  the  army,  he  had 
the  right  to  grant  trading  privileges,  for  which  grants 
he  received  substantial  gifts  from  the  merchants.2 
Of  course  such  a  great  king,  in  his  official  capacity, 
was  under  the  special  protection  of  Zeus ;  he  was 
addressed  with  titles  of  respect  even  when  the 
speaker  was  extremely  angry.3 

The  secret  of  the  higher  powers  conferred  upon 
Agamemnon  is  that  he  was  the  embodiment  of  the 
discipline  necessary  for  success  in  a  common  cause. 
He  was  insecure  enough  in  his  position  to  delight 
in  the  quarrels  of  powerful  sub-chiefs,  and  to  at- 
tempt to  quell  with  undue  harshness  any  sub-chief 
who  he  thought  was  trying  to  rival  him.4  Such 
personal  grudges  the  king  sometimes  gratified  by 
executing  an  injustice  under  the  protection  of  his 
royal  power;  yet,  though  the  injured  person  saw 
the  state  of  the  case  clearly  enough,  regard  for 
discipline  induced  self-restraint.  In  an  excep- 
tional case,  Discipline  itself,  in  the  form  of  Athena, 
restrained  the  rebellious  spirit  and  insisted  upon 

*  I,  171  ;  182-183  ;  II,  226  ff ;  IX,  120  ff. 

2  VII,  470-471  ;  IX,  71-72  ;  XXIII,  741-745. 

3  II,  196-197;  cf.  I,  122;  cf.  Gladstone,  J.  M.,  153  ff;  Naegels- 
bach,  280. 

4  viii,  75-78;  I,  176  ff;  287-289;  322-325. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.     259 

order.1  If  the  king  exceeded  his  powers  in  robbing 
a  sub-chief  of  his  personal  property,  it  was  yet  bet- 
ter to  endure  that  than  to  destroy  the  effectiveness 
of  the  confederation.  One  might  contend  against 
a  tyrannical  ruler  with  words,  but  his  person  was 
made  sacred  by  his  position,  and  his  dignity  was 
that  of  the  society  itself ;  even  the  greatest  sub- 
chiefs  must  learn  subordination.2 

From  what  we  know  of  the  rights,  duties,  and 
general  status  of  woman,  it  is  entirely  unlikely  that 
she  could  hold  political  power  of  any  sort,  at  least 
among  the  genuine  Greeks.  Perhaps  Arete  in  Phae- 
acia  held  some  political  power;  other  evidence  of 
"  queenship "  is  unsound  or  too  vague  to  receive 
serious  consideration.3 

The  king,  then,  was  the  highest  power  in  the 
Homeric  state ;  but  government  was  not  confined 
wholly  to  his  will.  Every  king  cared  for  his  own 
popularity,  and  did  not  wish  obstinately  to  oppose 
the  will  of  the  people  ;  he  would  make  a  great  sac- 
rifice rather  than  incur  the  people's  blame.  The 
popular  assembly,  as  a  means  of  taking  the  sense 
of  public  opinion,  became  a  distinctive  mark  of 
civilisation.4 

The  assembly  was  thus  closely  connected  with, 

1  I,  318  ff;  356 ;  137  ff ;  193  ff ;  cf.  Buchholz,  H.  R.,  Ill,  pt.  2, 
223. 

2  I,  211  ;  225  ff  ;  281  ;  IX,  160-161  ;  cf.  also  I,  255  ff ;  II,  247; 
371  ff;  IV,  256-258;  XXIV,  650-655. 

3  Cf.  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  III,  20  ff. 
*  xiv,  239;  cf.  ix,  112. 


260  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

if  not  dependent  upon,  the  kingship ;  its  absence 
was  a  proof  of  anarchy,  and  in  Ithaca  coincided  with 
the  absence  of  the  king ;  its  renewal,  as  indicative 
of  a  reinstatement  of  law  and  order,  was  hailed 
with  joy  by  the  old  and  wise.  The  agore,  we  find, 
was  primarily  a  meeting  for  the  discussion  of  ques- 
tions affecting  the  demos,  a  gathering  which  ap- 
parently any  one  (probably  of  kingly  rank)  could 
summon ;  indeed  sometimes  the  people  called  the 
king  to  assembly.  The  actual  summoning  was 
done  by  heralds.1 

The  ordinary  assembly  was  composed  of  two 
parties,  the  people  and  the  gerontes,  and  among 
the  latter  sat  the  king  upon  a  special  seat.  It  can 
hardly  be  said,  in  a  modern  sense,  that  the  king 
presided  over  the  assembly;  speakers  addressed 
him,  or  the  people,  or  both,  and  the  right  to  speak 
was  conferred  by  the  transfer  of  the  royal  sceptre, 
which  was  handed  by  a  herald  to  the  one  desiring 
to  speak.2  The  assembly  was  held  in  a  regular 
place  which  derived  its  name  from  that  fact;  the 
head-men  sometimes  sat  upon  "  polished  stones," 
and  the  place  was  evidently  the  most  frequented 
part  of  the  community,  resembling  the  mediaeval 
Roland  or  Mai.  The  assemblies  were  regularly  con- 
vened early  in  the  morning.3 

As  has  been  said,  matters  of  public  interest  were 

1  ii,  26-34  (cf.  xxiv,  420) ;  vi,  53-55;  ii,  6-7. 

2  ii,  14  ;  37-38. 

3  XVIII,  531;  vi,  267;  viii,  5-6;  cf.  XVIII,  504;  iii,  406  ff ; 
Lippert,  II,  148;  379;  i,  372;  xx,  146;  cf.  iii,  138. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     261 

the  general  business  of  the  assembly;  the  approv- 
ing or  discouraging  of  the  king's  projects.  On  the 
whole,  the  assembly  seems  to  have  had  little  or  no 
power  of  initiative.  Telemachus  brought  his  own 
private  need  before  an  assembly,  and  urged  the 
people  to  repress  the  Suitors ;  a  discussion  then 
ensued  between  the  speaker  and  several  of  the 
Suitors  concerning  the  re-marriage  of  the  former's 
mother.  All  the  people  pitied  Telemachus,  and 
some  were  eager  to  coerce  the  lawless  men,  but 
the  superior  power  and  organisation  of  the  latter 
prevented  such  action.  This  assembly  was  evi- 
dently an  irregular  one.  We  read  of  another  gath- 
ering called  by  the  relatives  of  the  dead  Suitors  to 
consider  plans  for  taking  vengeance,  but  it  also  was 
hurried  and  irregular.1  There  is  no  adequate  ex- 
ample of  the  assembly  in  time  of  peace,  possibly 
because  of  the  general  state  of  disintegration  of  gov- 
ernment in  the  Odyssey  period,  due  to  long  absence 
of  the  rulers. 

War-assemblies,  however,  are  quite  numerous  in 
the  Iliad;  and  since  they  were  not  essentially 
unlike  those  of  peace,  a  clearer  idea  of  the  latter 
can  be  gained  by  studying  the  councils  of  war.  The 
conditions  of  war,  it  must  be  remembered,  would 
tend,  on  the  one  hand,  to  draw  the  lines  of  disci- 
pline closer  and  to  limit  popular  privilege,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  make  the  head-king  more  depen- 
dent upon  a  small  circle  of  advisors,  the  heads  of 

1  ii,  6  ff ;  xxiv,  420  ff. 


260  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

if  not  dependent  upon,  the  kingship ;  its  absence 
was  a  proof  of  anarchy,  and  in  Ithaca  coincided  with 
the  absence  of  the  king ;  its  renewal,  as  indicative 
of  a  reinstatement  of  law  and  order,  was  hailed 
with  joy  by  the  old  and  wise.  The  agore,  we  find, 
was  primarily  a  meeting  for  the  discussion  of  ques- 
tions affecting  the  demos,  a  gathering  which  ap- 
parently any  one  (probably  of  kingly  rank)  could 
summon ;  indeed  sometimes  the  people  called  the 
king  to  assembly.  The  actual  summoning  was 
done  by  heralds.1 

The  ordinary  assembly  was  composed  of  two 
parties,  the  people  and  the  gerontes,  and  among 
the  latter  sat  the  king  upon  a  special  seat.  It  can 
hardly  be  said,  in  a  modern  sense,  that  the  king 
presided  over  the  assembly;  speakers  addressed 
him,  or  the  people,  or  both,  and  the  right  to  speak 
was  conferred  by  the  transfer  of  the  royal  sceptre, 
which  was  handed  by  a  herald  to  the  one  desiring 
to  speak.2  The  assembly  was  held  in  a  regular 
place  which  derived  its  name  from  that  fact;  the 
head-men  sometimes  sat  upon  "  polished  stones," 
and  the  place  was  evidently  the  most  frequented 
part  of  the  community,  resembling  the  mediaeval 
Roland  or  Mai.  The  assemblies  were  regularly  con- 
vened early  in  the  morning.3 

As  has  been  said,  matters  of  public  interest  were 

1  ii,  26-34  (cf.  xxiv,  420) ;  vi,  53-55;  ii,  6-7. 

2  ii,  14  ;  37-38. 

8  XVIII,  531;  vi,  267;  viii,  5-6;  cf.  XVIII,  504;  iii,  406  ff ; 
Lippert,  II,  148;  379;  i,  372;  xx,  146;  cf.  iii,  138. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     261 

the  general  business  of  the  assembly;  the  approv- 
ing or  discouraging  of  the  king's  projects.  On  the 
whole,  the  assembly  seems  to  have  had  little  or  no 
power  of  initiative.  Telemachus  brought  his  own 
private  need  before  an  assembly,  and  urged  the 
people  to  repress  the  Suitors ;  a  discussion  then 
ensued  between  the  speaker  and  several  of  the 
Suitors  concerning  the  re-marriage  of  the  former's 
mother.  All  the  people  pitied  Telemachus,  and 
some  were  eager  to  coerce  the  lawless  men,  but 
the  superior  power  and  organisation  of  the  latter 
prevented  such  action.  This  assembly  was  evi- 
dently an  irregular  one.  We  read  of  another  gath- 
ering called  by  the  relatives  of  the  dead  Suitors  to 
consider  plans  for  taking  vengeance,  but  it  also  was 
hurried  and  irregular.1  There  is  no  adequate  ex- 
ample of  the  assembly  in  time  of  peace,  possibly 
because  of  the  general  state  of  disintegration  of  gov- 
ernment in  the  Odyssey  period,  due  to  long  absence 
of  the  rulers. 

War-assemblies,  however,  are  quite  numerous  in 
the  Iliad;  and  since  they  were  not  essentially 
unlike  those  of  peace,  a  clearer  idea  of  the  latter 
can  be  gained  by  studying  the  councils  of  war.  The 
conditions  of  war,  it  must  be  remembered,  would 
tend,  on  the  one  hand,  to  draw  the  lines  of  disci- 
pline closer  and  to  limit  popular  privilege,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  make  the  head-king  more  depen- 
dent upon  a  small  circle  of  advisors,  the  heads  of 

1  ii,  6  ff  ;  xxiv,  420  £f. 


262  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

the  various  contingents.  That  is,  the  centre  of 
gravity  of  the  system  lay  distinctly  in  the  boule, 
or  council  of  chiefs,  an  organisation  which  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  clearly  differentiated  in  time 
of  peace,  and  which  does  not  occur  among  the 
Trojans  in  any  developed  form. 

The  king's  council  was  convoked  in  times  of  great 
need,  and  before  it  the  ruler  laid  his  perplexities  and 
asked  advice.  The  deliberations  were  usually 
accompanied  by  a  feast,  and  the  calling  of  such  a 
council  might  be  suggested  by  a  sub-chief.1  The 
proceedings  of  the  council  were  devoid  of  ceremony, 
except  that  the  speaker  stood  while  addressing  the 
company.  It  was  the  king's  duty  to  listen  to  good 
advice,  though  he  was  not  compelled  to  take  it ;  the 
7-uling  was  the  king's  affair.  Speech  in  the  council 
was  very  free ;  the  chieftains  often  severely  blamed 
the  king,  who  took  the  reproaches  with  humility  when 
he  had  made  costly  mistakes.2  The  council  was  not 
convened  on  all  occasions,  but  was  very  much 
respected  by  the  king,  and  always  summoned  when 
he  was  in  distress.  In  general  it  preceded  the 
popular  assembly,  and  prepared  the  matter  which 
was  to  come  before  it,  the  king  depending  upon  the 
co-operation  of  the  counsellors,  men  of  maturity 
and  experience,3  in  order  to  influence  the  people  as 
he  wished.     There  is,  however,  no  evidence  to  show 

1  IX,  69-73;  cf .  IV,  259  ff;  343  ff;  VII,  321;  VIII,  161-162; 
IX,  225  ff;  XII,  310  ff. 

2  IX,  96-102;  cf.  XV,  720  ff;  IX,  70  ff;  XIV,  82  ff;  103  ff. 

8  II,  371-373;  IX,  89  ff;  II,  53  ff;  404  ff;  440;  445  ff;  IX,  422. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     263 

that  the   council  was   more   than    advisory   in  its 
function. 

The  popular  assembly  or  agore  was  a  frequent 
gathering,  perhaps  a  periodical  one.  As  in  the  town, 
so  in  the  camp,  the  general  assembly  was  held  in  a 
fixed  place  —  by  the  ships  of  the  head-king,  though 
separate  nations  had  their  assembling-places  and 
public  altars  by  their  own  ships.1  The  assembly 
was  convoked  early  in  the  morning  by  the  king  or  by 
some  chief,  generally  through  the  agency  of  "  clear- 
voiced  "  heralds,  who  summoned  the  people  by 
shouting.  Sometimes  the  chief  himself  did  this 
summoning;  in  times  of  danger,  the  heralds  and 
king  went  about  quietly,  summoning  the  men  by 
name.2  The  people  gathered  with  tremendous  out- 
cry, and  were  restrained  by  heralds  into  a  proper 
silence.  The  person  who  had  convened  the  assembly 
then  arose  and  explained  the  matter  in  hand,  after 
which  the  question  was  open  for  discussion.  Per- 
mission to  speak  was  symbolised  by  the  holding  of 
a  sceptre,  probably  that  of  the  house  of  Atreus,3  and 
the  speeches  were  very  frank.  In  general,  only  the 
chiefs  spoke,  differing  often  from  the  king,  and 
sometimes  reproaching  him  severely  before  the 
whole  people ;  it  was  themis  to  differ  with  the 
king  in  assembly,  and  he  must  not  be  angry.4  Only 
occasionally  did  the  king  restrict  speech  or  flatly 

1  Cf .  I,  490  ;  VII,  372  ;  382-383  ;  XI,  806-808. 

2  VIII,  2ff;  iii,  137-138;  II,  50-52;  XIX,  40-41  ;  IX,  10-12. 
8  I,  245  ;  II,  101  ff.  *  iii,  127;  IX,  31  ff. 


264  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

disregard  advice ;  in  general  he  felt  bound  to 
respect  the  wish  of  the  people.1  Oratory  was 
greatly  admired  in  the  assembly,  and  the  effective 
style  was  that  where  words  came  "  thick  and  fast."  2 
The  counsel  of  the  experienced  and  aged  was  most 
respected ;  a  young  man  would  sometimes  urge  his 
nobility  of  birth  as  an  excuse  for  his  speaking,  in 
council  as  well  as  in  assembly.  The  assembly  was 
dismissed  by  the  rising  of  the  king  or  convoker, 
though  sometimes  the  people  rushed  off  under 
impulse.3 

The  relation  of  the  king  and  the  assembly  as 
governing  powers  has  been  indicated  in  general 
lines ;  the  assembly  was  a  means  of  gauging 
popular  feeling,  to  which  a  sensible  king  was  prone 
to  conform  his  action.  The  sentiment  of  the 
assembly  was  indicated  by  the  silence  of  disapproval 
or  the  acclamations  of  approval.4  The  popular 
attitude  was  the  attitude  of  the  "  Tis "  who,  in  an 
unofficial  manner,  communicated  his  views  to  his 
neighbour ; 5  the  popular  mind  was  awake  and  prone 
to  express  its  feelings,  and  the  consensus  of  many 
unofficial  expressions  of  opinion  constituted  the 
approval  or  disapproval  referred   to.      The  common 

1  Cf.  XVIII,  245  ff;  296;  XIV,  105-106. 

2  III,  212  ff;  also  I,  248  ff;  XV,  284;  XVIII,  105-106;  Odys- 
seus and  (at  least  in  Iliad,  IX)  Achilles,  the  typical  heroes,  were 
great  orators;  cf.  Gladstone,  Hm  &  Hra.  Age,  III,  96-116. 

8  XIV,  1 13  ff ;  I,  304-305  ;  XIX,  276  ;  II,  142  ff. 
4  VII,  398  ;  IX,  29 ;  VII,  403  ;  IX,  50. 

a  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  III,  131-143;  Friedreich,  art. 
134-135  ;  cf.  II,  271-277. 


GOVERNMENT,   CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     265 

man  might  speak  in  assembly,  but  the  one  example 
of  such  a  practice  tends  to  prove  it  an  exception,  and 
brands  it  with  a  certain  disapprobation.1 

The  people  might  split  into  factions,  however, 
and  follow  diverse  plans  and  leaders  ;  in  general 
they  were,  in  the  assembly,  subjected  to  a  discipline 
and  education  whose  value  was  well  known  to  them- 
selves.2 The  assembly  was  an  "  ennobler  of  men," 
and  though  the  humblest  of  the  Greeks  (e.  g.,  pilots) 
did  not  often  come  to  the  assembly,  they  took  an 
interest  in  the  society's  vital  doings ;  they  were  not 
mere  slaves.  Before  them  the  king  was  sometimes 
forced  to  humble  himself,  and  upon  the  people's 
expression  of  approval  or  disapproval  regarding  a 
course  of  action  submitted  to  them,  the  king  was 
glad  to  set  his  stamp  of  executive  assent.  Appeals 
were  addressed  not  only  to  the  king  and  sub-chiefs, 
but  also  to  the  people ;  the  people  had  a  share  in 
the  decision  of  the  larger  questions,  for  the  king 
could  not  utterly  disregard  their  evident  wishes ; 
the  smaller  questions  were  confided  to  the  king 
alone.3 

There  are  two  fairly  complete  descriptions  of 
assemblies  and  their  action  in  Homer ;  though  they 
are  taken  from  war-times,  the  condition  of  peace 
can  easily  be  deduced  by  slight  modifications.  Both 
should  be  studied  in  detail  to  gain  a  clear  view  of 

1  II,  212-277 ;  but  cf.  Gladstone,  Hra.  &  Hm.  Age.  Ill,  129. 

2  iii,  136  ff;  cf.  XIX,  79  ff ;  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  III, 
144;  417;  451-452. 

8  XIX,  42-45;  77 ff;  I,  15-16;  VII,  385;  399-411. 


266  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

the  relations  of  king  and  people.  Here  is  no  space 
for  even  a  summary  of  what  is  so  readily  accessible 
in  full,  but  certain  general  considerations  emerge 
which  may  be  mentioned. 

The  power  of  the  Trojan  assembly  convoked  in 
Iliad  VII  (345-379)  appears  to  have  been  very 
limited ;  proceedings  were  irregular  and  undignified 
and  arrived  at  no  result ;  no  assent  or  disapproval 
were  shown,  and  the  people  merely  obeyed.  There 
appears  to  have  been  no  discipline,  for  one  man  could 
defy  the  will  of  all  those  who  were  day  by  day  suffer- 
ing and  dying  in  expiation  of  his  evil  actions.  This 
instance  tends  to  prove  the  weaker  organisation  of 
the  Trojans,  and,  as  far  as  it  goes,  supports  the 
theory  that  Paris  was  the  oldest  son  and  presump- 
tive heir  to  the  Trojan  throne.1  In  the  Trojan 
assembly  the  same  question  of  restitution  had 
often  appeared  before,  and  Paris  had  maintained 
his  position  by  bribes ;  such  unjust  and  irregular 
acts  were  those  which  Zeus  severely  punished.2 

The  finest  example  of  the  relation  of  king,  nobles, 
and  people  lies  in  the  complication  of  plot  which 
forms  the  introduction  to  the  Iliad.3  The  whole 
of  this  story  is  exceedingly  instructive  to  the  social 
scientist ;  a  few  among  many  points  may  be  selected 
for  special  mention.  The  king,  it  seems,  was  not 
forcibly  restrained  by  the  assembly,  nobles,  or  peo- 

1  Gladstone,  J.  M.,  221-223. 

2  XI,  124-125;  139-141 ;  cf.  XVI,  385  ft. 
«  I,  12ff. 


GOVERNMENT,   CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     267 

pie  froin  courses  of  action  sure  to  bring  calamity ; 
his  sin  was  expiated,  without  complaint,  by  the 
community.  Discipline  was  such  that  private  feel- 
ings and  ends  were  subordinated  to  collective  ends, 
except  in  the  case  of  the  blackest  injustice.  The 
king,  however,  was  jealous  of  great  and  powerful 
sub-chiefs  and  disposed  to  prove  his  superiority  by 
an  abuse  of  power  entrusted  to  him.  The  sub-chief, 
on  the  other  hand,  was  jealous  of  the  ascendancy 
of  a  man  inferior  in  strength  and  bravery  to  him- 
self, envious  of  his  riches  and  prerogatives  ;  the  king 
could  not,  however,  force  this  sub-chief  to  serve  in 
war  if  he  wished  to  retire.1  He  was  quite  willing 
to  dispense  with  a  personality  greater  in  the  peo- 
ple's eyes  than  his  own,  with  little  thought  of  the 
consequences.  By  the  sequel,  i.  e.,  the  ruling  of 
the  gods,  the  king's  actions  were  judged,  but  not  by 
the  assembly  or  council;  the  king  was  the  power, 
even  in  a  confederation  apparently  of  peers.  But 
there  were  limits  beyond  which  he  could  not  go  and 
still  preserve  the  sacredness  and  inviolability  of  his 
person. 

In  this  episode  the  superiority  of  the  king  over 
his  inferiors  is  set  forth  in  the  case  of  Calchas; 
in  times  of  violence  a  common  man  was  not  safe 
unless  he  was  under  the  protection  of  some  one 
who  possessed  power  to  defend  him.  Dependence 
was  better  than  freedom.2 

If  the  power  of  the  chief  of  a  confederation  was 

1  Cf  II,  286 ;  339  ff.  a  1,74-83. 


268  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

so  strong  over  his  sub-chiefs  and  people,  it  must  be 
supposed  that  a  like  relation  obtained  upon  a  smaller 
scale.  The  rule  of  the  king  was  a  matter  of  force, 
and  its  perpetuation  a  matter  of  the  maintenance 
of  real  power;  tyranny  can  be  supported  if  the 
tyrant  can  enforce  order.1  Council  and  assembly 
were  means  of  assuring  such  predominance. 

CLASSES 

The  upper  classes  in  the  Homeric  state  have  been 
partially  described  in  the  preceding  pages ;  a  dis- 
tinction in  power  has  been  found  between  king  and 
noble,  which  led  to  the  elevation  of  the  one  and  the 
partial  subjection  of  the  other.  In  reality,  the 
royal  house  was  only  the  strongest  of  a  number 
of  noble,  houses;  the  name  basileus  is  applicable 
alike  to  king  and  noble,  the  king  being  the  greatest 
noble,  as  Agamemnon  was  the  "  chiefest "  king.2 
Therefore  in  the  noble  class  we  find  the  really  rul- 
ing class,  and  in  it  the  origins  of  the  kingship. 

In  Phseacia,  Alcinous  was  surrounded  by  twelve 
"  kings  "  who  were  entertained  much  at  his  house. 
They  were  associated  with  him  in  assembly  and 
in  public  functions,  though  under  his  orders ;  with 
him  they  levied  upon  the  people.  They  held  a 
(/eras   from   the   people,  and  were  served  by   her- 

1  Sumner,  U.  L. ;  Letourneau,  Soc,  446  ;  Prop.,  236  ;  Polit.,  47- 
49. 

2  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  I,  18-20  ;  62-69  ;  Buchholz,  II,  pt. 
1,  p.  4  ft ;  Iliad,  II,  228. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.     269 

a  ds ;  they  were  called  gerontes,  "  counsellors," 
and  "sceptre-bearers."1  In  Ithaca,  the  head-men 
ai  ions  the  Suitors  were  called  basileus  and  one  of 
them  expected  to  gain  the  kingship  by  marrying 
the  king's  widow ;  Telemachus  says  of  the  succes- 
sion that  there  is  many  another  basileus  in  Ithaca, 
young  or  old ;  that  one  of  these  may  get  the 
kingship  since  (apparently)  Odysseus  is  dead.  The 
presence  of  the  nobles'  sons2  in  the  house  of  Odys- 
seus is  an  anomalous  condition,  not  at  all  to  be 
taken  as  evidence  of  a  general  rise  of  the  nobles 
against  the  kings  throughout  Greece. 

The  heads  of  noble  families  were  represented  in 
the  circle  of  gerontes  which  surrounded  the  king, 
this  fact  pointing  back  to  patriarchal  customs.  Old 
men  were  highly  reverenced ;  experience  was  the 
only  education,  and  age  alone  gave  that.  Thus 
the  associates  of  the  king  in  peace  and  his  coun- 
sellors in  war.  inherited  the  name  gerontes,  though 
few  of  them  were  really  old  and  several  young.3 

In  the  united  forces  before  Troy  there  were, 
according  to  Gladstone,  nine  Greek  kings.  These 
leaders,  whatever  their  actual  number,  formed  Aga- 
memnon's council,  with  powers  as  above  described. 

1  viii,  390-391  ;  xiii,  8-9 ;  xv,  467-468 ;  vi,  53-55 ;  60-61  ;  vii, 
98-99;  190  ff ;  viii,  41-43;  vii,  150;  viii,  399;  vii,  189;  viii,  41 ; 
xiii,  12.  Alcinous  calls  himself  "the  thirteenth"  of  these  (viii, 
391). 

2  i,  394-396  ;  ii,  51  ;  cf.  i,  245  ff  j  xvi,  247  ff. 
8^1110^8-110;  XXIII,  589-590 ;  788;  etc.;  II,404ff;  cf.XIV, 

112 


J  11100,8-110;  XXIII,  58 
STXIX,  339.       ~~~ 


270  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

These  were  the  only  ones  who  dined  with  Aga- 
memnon and  whose  advice  had  real  weight  with 
him ;  only  on  special  occasions  were  other,  younger 
leaders  admitted  to  the  council.1  Nobility  was 
a  matter  of  birth,  pure  and  simple.  Of  course  the 
bravest  men  became  the  rulers  and  commanders ; 
and,  since  the  sons  of  these  generally  possessed 
like  qualities,2  a  power,  once  established,  tended  to 
remain  in  the  same  families.  When  we  approach 
the  question  of  how  the  nobility  arose,  we  find 
ourselves  referred  for  an  explanation  to  some  far- 
off  conquest  where  victors  imposed  upon  subject- 
elements  their  rule  and  that  of  their  families. 
/  The  consideration  due  a  prince  is  contrasted  with 
that  due  a  simple  man  of  the  people.  The  former 
was  remonstrated  with  courteously  and  respectfully  ; 
the  latter  rebuked  harshly,  and  beaten,  in  event  of 
unseemly  or  cowardly  conduct.  The  common  peo- 
ple appear  in  Homer  as  a  somewhat  undifferen- 
tiated mass,  and,  except  the  distinction  between 
noble  and  man-of-the-cfomos,  social  contrasts  be- 
tween the  free  classes  are  not  clear.3  / 
/  The  "  people  "  were  the  "  companions  "  of  the 
nobles  in  war.  In  battle  they  were  less  brave 
and  able,  and  were  sternly  made  to  feel  their  place, 
though  they  were  usually  very  faithful  to  their 
leaders  and  their  leaders'  sons.     The  people  were 

1  Hm.  &  Hm.   Age,   III,  20-35 ;  cf.  XVII,  249-251  ;  Naegels- 
bach,  286  ;  X,  196-197. 

3  X,  239  ;  XI,  786,  etc. ;  X,  300-301  ;  XV,  295  ff ;  cf.  xiii,  223. 
»  II,  188  ff;  212  ff. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.     271 

blamed  for  not  supporting  the  dynasty  of  Odysseus, 
but  it  is  implied  that  they  would  have  avenged  his 
son's  murder  and  were  indeed  willing  to  repress 
and  banish  the  Suitors  if  they  had  been  able.1  In 
general,  however,  their  own  movements  and  fate 
were  not  their  own  business,  but  that  of  their 
leaders ;  their  share  in  war  seems  to  have  been 
desultory  plunder  and  the  stripping  of  the  dead. 
There  were  some  of  them  indeed  who  rarely  came 
to  the  assemblies  or  exercised  other  prerogatives 
of  "  free  "  men.2/ 

There  was  nothing  in  manual  labour  that  de- 
meaned the  man,  as  we  have  seen.3  In  Homer  the 
crafts  are  respectable,  and  more.  The  Greeks  were 
just  learning  processes,  and  all  was  new  and  inter- 
esting, rendering  possible,  as  it  did,  a  life  of  greater 
luxury.  /Slaves  from  the  East  were  respected 
highly.  Later,  familiarity  with  a  greater  number  of 
Eastern  slaves  and  merchants  decreased  the  value 
to  Greek  eyes  of  these  importations,  and  respect  for 
dexterity  and  skill  in  handicrafts  declined.  The 
Greeks  had  not  been  forced  to  establish  a  middle 
class.  /Thus  the  gifts  of  the  Phoenicians  were  the 
cause  of  Grecian  decadence,  after  having  proved  an 
incitement  to  early  progress.  The  products  and  pro- 
cesses derived  from  the  East  finished  by  becoming 
too  common ;  the  effort  necessary  to  get  them  de- 

1  II,  200  ff  ;  250  ;  I,  345  ;  ii,  254  ;  etc. ;  iv,  738  ff ;  v,  8-12 ;  xvi, 
375-382. 

2  II,  246  ff ;  X,  343  ;  XIX,  42-45. 

3  See  pp.  85 ;  93  above. 


272  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

creased  as  their  value  fell,  and  many  an  incentive 
to  a  wider  and  fuller  social  development  was  taken 
away.  The  social  force  in  this  case  worked  thus 
both  backward  and  forward,  leading  first  to  ad- 
vance and  then  to  retrogression. 

The  first  indication  of  this  trend  of  thought 
appears  in  the  contempt  shown  for  a  mercenary 
supercargo;  the  instance  is  isolated  and  refers  to 
trade  alone,  not  to  any  handicraft.  There  were 
really  no  Greek  merchants  ;  fine  artisans  were  con- 
sidered public  benefactors.1 

The  social  position  of  the  smiths  is  always  a  point 
of  interest  in  studying  social  habitudes  and  status.2 
It  has  been  said  that  the  smith  who  possessed  high 
art  in  metal- working  was  apparently  a  foreigner, 
and  combined  inn-keeping  with  his  regular  occupa- 
tion ;  also  that  he  appears  to  have  been  a  retainer 
in  one  instance.  He  was  respected  as  other  crafts- 
men were,  but,  strangely  enough,  was  not  included 
among  the  dlmioergoi?  Mention  of  mortal  smiths 
is  rare ;  from  what  is  said  of  them,  and  from  the 
study  of  the  god  Hephaestus,  no  evidence  appears  to 
indicate  that  the  smith  was  regarded  as  a  sorcerer 
or  utter  alien.  The  smith  was  not  confined  to  the 
vicinity  of  ore-deposits,  nor  were  such  folk-move- 
ments prevalent  as  would  surround  him  from  time 
to  time  with  a  strange  population.  Hephaestus  pre- 
sents  the  figure  of  a  recently  adopted,  respected, 

1  viii,  159-164;  xvii,  383-385;  cf.  XXIV,  681. 

2  Lippert,  II,  215  f£.  *  iii,  432 ft;  xvii,  383-385. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.     273 

though  not  influential  god,  quite  under  the  maternal 
domination.1 

Between  the  status  of  the  ordinary  demos  and 
that  of  the  nobility,  membership  in  either  of  which 
was  a  matter  of  birth,  was  a  sort  of  intermediate 
stratum.  The  people  were,  as  a  body,  the  retainers 
of  the  princes,  but,  naturally  enough,  some  among 
them  came  to  be  more  closely  identified  with  the 
local  lord  and  his  interests.  It  is  probable  that 
these  closer  hetairoi  were  of  higher  birth  than  the 
mass  of  the  people ;  their  quality  of  bravery  would 
prove  this  to  Homer's  satisfaction,  at  least.  Also  we 
find  exiles  of  princely  extraction  received  by  a  king 
and  appointed  to  be  teachers  or  close  companions 
to  his  son.2  A  number  of  these  persons,  however, 
are  not  represented  as  being  of  high  birth,  and 
may  have  been  merely  the  most  capable  and  faith- 
ful of  the  common  people;  indeed,  great  fidelity  in 
a  slave^sometimes  led  to  his  elevation  to  the  status 
of  hetairos.3  Though  generally  the  therapontes  were 
body-servants,  their  function  was  often  an  impor- 
tant one.4  Odysseus  turned  over  his  property  to 
the  supervision  of  Mentor,  and  that  Athena  took 
Mentor's  form  in  her  attendance  upon  Telemachus 
proves  that  the  real  Mentor  was   respected   as   a 

1  I,  586  ff  ;  XXI,  330  ff ;  367-368 ;  377-381  ;  384. 

2  IX,  440  ff;  607  ff;  XV,  431-432;  439;  XVI,  573-574; 
XXIII,  85-90  ;  xiii,  265-266. 

8  xxi,  214-216. 

4  XIX,  143-144;  316;  321-322;  331-333;  XXIV,  396-397 ; 
574-575  ;  625 ;  viii,  585-586  ;  xvii,  68-70. 

18 


274  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

good  adviser;  Mentor  always  stood  out  firmly 
against  the  Suitors'  outrages.  Closely  assimilated 
with  this  class  of  retainers  were  the  bard  and 
prophet;  prophets  might  be  noble,  and  the  few 
priests  were  of  high  birth,  neither,  however,  form- 
ing a  caste.1 

The  office  of  herald  was  likewise  connected  with 
the  person  of  the  lord ;  the  close  hetairoi  might  be 
heralds  also.  But  this  office  will  suffer  a  further 
definition ;  it  was  one  of  public  importance  and  the 
herald  was  invariably  attached  to  a  king  or  kingly 
house,  thus  becoming  a  sort  of  royal  emblem.2 

Heralds  were  first  of  all  servants  of  the  king  in 
his  public  capacity,  though  as  hetairoi  they  not  in- 
frequently ministered  to  his  private  needs.3  In  his 
public  capacity,  the  herald  officiated  as  a  sort  of 
trained  servant  of  the  state;  he  mixed  the  wine, 
poured  the  purifying  water,  and  performed  other 
functions  at  public  sacrifice.4  Heralds  summoned 
the  people  to  assembly  and  kept  them  in  order 
when  they  came ;  they  also  delivered  the  sceptre  to 
the  one  desiring  to  speak.5     They  were  the  regular 

1  ii,  225  ff;  i,  416;  iii,  267. 

2  I,  320-321  ;  xviii,  424 ;  xix,  244 ;  247-248 ;  XVII,  324-325 ; 
xviii,  64-65  ;  then  cf.  xviii,  292  and  295  with  297  and  300. 

8  II,  184;  IV,  193;  i,  153;  iv,  301;  xvi,  328;  xviii,  291  ff; 
xxii,  357-358. 

*  III,  116;  118;  268-274;  IX,  171-174;  XVIII,  558-559; 
XIX,  196-197;  250-251;  267-268;  vii,  163-164;  178;  xiii,  50 ff; 
64-65  ;   xx,  276  ff. 

6  II,  50-51 ;  IX,  10-12  ;  ii,  6-7  ;  viii,  8-12 ;  II,  96-97 ;  279-280; 
437  ff;  XVIII,  503-505;  XXIII,  568;  ii,  37-3a 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     275 

means  of  communication  between  hostile  armies, 
passed  freely  from  camp  to  camp,  and  were  evi- 
dently under  a  tabu ;  their  persons  were  sacred  and 
easily  recognisable ;  they  were  called  "  divine." l 
Agamemnon  sent  heralds  to  take  away  Achilles's 
prize,  his  act  being  thus  made  at  least  a  semi-official 
one.  They  feared  to  tell  their  mission,  but  Achilles 
recognised  them  at  once  and  welcomed  them,  how- 
ever unwelcome  their  message :  "  Hail,  heralds, 
messengers  of  Zeus  and  of  men !  Approach.  Ye 
are  not  blameworthy  in  my  sight."2  The  ordeal- 
duel  of  Ajax  and  Hector  was  stopped  by  heralds, 
one  from  the  Trojan  and  one  from  the  Greek  side ; 
they  bore  the  royal  sceptres,  which  they  held  be- 
tween the  combatants,  bidding  them  cease.  There 
is  also  an  isolated  case  of  the  herald  as  crier.3 

Heralds  and  squires  had  functions  which  mark 
them  out  as  above  the  ordinary  mass  of  the  people. 
But  there  were  other  free  men  who  seem  to  have 
been  lower  than  the  ordinary  man  of  the  demos. 
Hired  labourers  we  have  found  to  be  a  type  of 
misery ;  there  was  also  a  class  of  metanastai,  prob- 
ably resident  aliens,  of  whom,  however,  little  is  said. 
The  impression  gained  concerning  them  is  that  they 
had  few  rights  and  were  much  oppressed.4 
Jhfijowest  free  man  seems  to  have  been  the 
beggar,  of  which  class  there  were  two  types :  the 

1  VII,  372  ff ;  IX,  170;  689;  x,  102;  cf.  XXIV,  149-150. 

2  I,  334  ff. 

8  VII,  274-282;  XXIV,  577;  cf.  701. 
4  xi,  489-491  ;  IX,  647-648;  XVI,  58-59. 


276  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

unfortunate  and  the  indolent.  Men  of  high  station 
in  old  age  might  fall  into  misery  and  beggary,  —  such 
a  role  was  played  by  the  disguised  Odysseus;  on 
the  other  hand,  young  and  able-bodied  men  might  beg 
as  a  profession.  With  the  former  class,  considerable 
sympathy  was  felt ;  for  the  latter,  only  disgust  and 
contempt.  Beggars  were  ordinarily  of  the  former 
class,  it  seems,  for  -they  were  under  the  protection 
of  Zeus,  as  guest-friends  were,  and  were  generally 
pitied  and  treated  well.1  It  was  part  of  the  Suitors' 
grievous  transgression  that  they  maltreated  the  beg- 
gar Odysseus.  Violence  toward  him  was  received 
with  a  curse :  "  If  there  are  gods  and  Erinyes  who 
protect  beggars,  may  Antinous  meet  the  end  of 
death  before  his  marriage;"  even  the  Suitors  re- 
buked such  violence  and  warned  Antinous  that  he 
might  be  striking  a  god.  Other  cases  of  the  beating 
and  striking  of  beggars  were,  however,  not  infre- 
quent, and  they  might  be  seized  and  sold  into 
slavery.2 

The  beggar  class  throve  best  in  the  towns  or 
settlements ;  they  were  regarded  as  a  social  burden, 
and  no  one  would  invite  them  to  come  and  live  on 
him;  they  are  contrasted  with  the  really  valuable 
members  of  society.  They  were  clad  in  wretched 
skins,  and  ate  off  the  floor  or  a  low  table ;  they  ran 
errands,  and  seem  to  have  had  no  particular  dwell- 

1  xix,  165  ff:  xviii.  Iff;  vi,  207-208. 

2  xvii.  216;  226  ff;  363;  xviii,  362-364;  xx,  379;  xvii,  475- 
476  ;  483-487  ;  cf.  iv,  244-248  ;  xvii,  250. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     211 

ing.  Some  were  lazy  and  useless;  Odysseus, 
representing  the  type  of  unfortunate  beggar,  was 
unwilling  to  burden  his  host,  and  would  serve  the 
Suitors  in  any  capacity,  however  humble.1  The 
condition  of  the  slave,  the  well-defended  property  of 
a  strong  master,  was  often  better  than  that  of  the 
free  man,  in  that  age  of  violence. 

Slavery  in  Homer's  time  was  a  matter  of  the 
exploitation  of  aliens ;  the  narrow  bounds  of  family 
and  tribal  union  had  in  so  far  widened  that  Greek 
never  became  slave  of  Greek.2  There  was  no  slavery 
for  debt ;  slaves  were  primarily  won  in  war,  though 
often  bought  from  traders.  According  to  the  usage 
of  war,  the  men  were  slain  and  only  the  women  and 
children  carried  off  into  servitude ;  as  has  been  said, 
organisation  was  not  yet  strong  enough  to  hold  in 
subjection  bodies  of  grown  men.  Also  the  slaves 
who  were  bought  were  mostly  women  and  children, 
for  they  were  most  easily  kidnapped ;  the  men-slaves 
of  Homer  were  often  persons  who  had  been  bought 
when  young  and  trained  for  their  later  position  by 
Jnejitaster.  A  distinction  is  felt,  perhaps,  between 
Greeks  and  peoples  of  an  older  and  more  stable 
organisation ;  Egyptians  could  capture  strong  en- 
emies and  hold  them  in  bondage.3 

Greek  civilisation  had  not  yet  reached  that  point 
of  development  where  the  labour  of  master  and  man 

1  xvii,  18;  376;  382-387;  xiii,  434-438;  xvii,  357;  xviii,  6-7; 
xix,  27-28  ;  xviii,  362-364  ;  xx,  379 ;  xv,  321-324. 

2  Cf.  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  I,  235. 

3  xiv,  3  ff;  xv,  363  ff;  xiv,  272;  297;  316  ff. 


278  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

was  diverse  in  kind  and  carried  on  in  different  places  ; 
the  system  of  slave-holding  was  the  family  system, 
where  master  and  man  were  ever  thrown  closely  to- 
gether. Hence  the  treatment  of  human  property  was 
not  marked  by  the  relentless  and  unfeeling  cruelty  of 
Rome,  nor  by  the  indifference  and  coldness  of  later 
Greece.  Not  that  there  was  any  question  of  the 
slave  being  property  pure  and  simple;  there  were 
no  "  rights  of  all  men "  in  the  Greek  mind.  The 
slave  had  no  rights,  for  rights  are  in  general  founded 
on  power,  and  his  power  was  nil.1  This  conclusion 
the  slave  readily  accepted ;  he  regarded  his  lot  as  an 
unfortunate  one,  but  had  no  complaints  of  injustice 
to  make.  With  the  usual  facility  of  adaptation 
displayed  by  Homer's  people,  the  slave  accommo- 
dated himself  to  conditions  and  made  the  best  of 
them,  often  identifying  himself  thoroughly  with  his 
master's  house  and  its  interests.2  There  seems  to 
have  been  no  thought  of  a  slave-rising,  even  during 
the  period  of  anarchy  succeeding  the  departure  of 
the  Greek  chiefs;  indeed  the  slaves  were  more 
faithful  than  the  retainers  in  the  preservation  of 
their  master's  property. 

The  conditions  of  slavery  were  therefore  mild. 
Only  in  the  case  of  the  greatest  unfaithfulness  did 
severe  punishment  fall  upon  the  slave,  —  penalties 
of  death  and  mutilation,  —  which  prove  the  slave  a 
chattel  without  rights  or  the  hope  of  an  avenger  of 

1  Cf.  Naegelsbach,  274. 

2  xiv,  3-4;  xvii,  594;  xix,  355  ff ;  xx,  218-223. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.    279 

blood.  The  old  and  faithful  slave  was  not  much 
below  the  hetairos  and  for  exceptional  service  might 
obtain  a  wife,  be  numbered  among  the  retainers 
of  the  house,  and  be  honoured  like  a  brother  of 
the  heir.  Thus  slavery  passed  easily  into  client- 
age. Evidently  also  the  slave  possessed  a  sort  of 
peculium,  as  well  as  wife  and  house,  at  the  will  of 
the  master;  Eumseus,  the  swineherd,  had  a  slave 
which  he  himself  had  bought.1  Slave-women  are 
found  offering  a  price  for  a  piece  of  jewelry,  and  in 
several  places  it  is  hinted  that  a  good  master  would 
give  his  slave  something  now  and  then  if  he  had 
been  faithful.2  It  has  been  mentioned  that  the 
marriage  of  slaves  was  at  the  will  of  the  master ;  in 
no  other  way  than  by  a  master's  kindness  could  a 
slave  obtain  a  wife.  Slave-marriages  produced  slave- 
children  ;  but  the  children  of  a  master  and  his  con- 
cubines followed  closely  the  status  of  the  father,3 
this  fact  again  attesting  the  strength  of  patriarchal 
ideas.  Unions  between  slave-men  and  free  women 
were,  of  course,  impossible  under  Homeric  con- 
ditions. 

The  tasks  of  slaves  did  not  differ  much  from  the 
duties  of  master  and  mistress.  Female  captives  in 
war  regularly  became  concubines;  they  were  en- 
tirely at  the  disposal  of  their  conquerors,  who  might 
formally  marry  them  if   they  chose.      Women  of 

1  xxi,  214-216;  xiv,  449-452. 

2  xiv,  62-67  ;  xv,  376-379. 

3  xviii,  223;  cf.  iv,  10  ft 


280  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

princely  descent  drew  water  for  their  masters  in  a 
foreign  land,1  for  the  noblest  might  at  any  time  fall 
into  servitude  by  chance  of  war.  Women-slaves 
regularly  spun  and  wove  under  the  direction  of  the 
mistress,  cleaned  the  house,  ground  the  meal,  washed 
the  clothes  under  the  supervision  of  the  mistress 
and  probably  with  her  aid,  nursed  the  children, 
cooked  the  food,  etc.2  Some  of  these  female  slaves 
were  very  beautiful  and  accomplished  foreigners ; 
the  women  were  under  the  immediate  supervision 
of  an  older  female  slave,  who,  in  the  absence  of 
the  mistress,  might  become  the  sole  manager  of 
the  domestic  economy.  Faithful  stewardesses  who 
held  the  secrets  of  the  treasure-house  were  not  un- 
usual.3 The  assumption  by  female  slaves  of  prop- 
erty-rights in  themselves  (adultery)  was  punished 
by  death,  and  impertinence  to  the  guests  of  the 
house  might  lead  to  terrible  penalties ;  if,  however, 
the  slave  was  faithful,  she  was  carefully  reared  and 
fared  not  much  differently  from  her  mistress.4 

Men-slaves,  often  fallen  nobles,5  tended  the  flocks 
and  herds,  and  in  case  of  raids,  were  killed  or  cap- 

1  XIX,  295  ff  ;  cf .  I,  366  ff  ;  II,  226-228  ;  IX,  658  ;  XI,  625 ;  XX, 
1 93  ;  i,  430-433 ;  vii,  10-12  ;  viii,  527-529  ;  xi,  421-422  ;  xv,  41 5  ff ; 
VI,  456  ff. 

2  III,  388 ;  422 ;  VI,  323 ;  375  ;  399 ;  491  ff ;  XXII,  450  ;  503  ; 
XXIV,  587;  i,  136  ff;  331  ;  357-358;  435;  439;  ii,  345-347  ;  vii, 
10-12  ;  103-110;  x,  349 ;  xviii,  27 ;  xix,  355;  482-483;  xx,  105-111 ; 
xxii,  421-427. 

»  iii,  392  ;  ix,  207 ;  xxiii,  293. 

*  xviii,  338  ff ;  xix,  65  ff  ;  vi,  76  ff ;  xviii,  323. 

6  xiv,  340  ff  ;  xv,  381  ff ;  xvii,  419-420. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.     281 

tured  with  them,  carved  and  served  the  table,  cared 
for  trees  and  hedges,  assisted  their  masters  in  feuds, 
etc.1  Unfaithfulness  or  opposition  to  a  master's 
power  led  to  severe  punishment,  mutilation  or 
death ; 2  the  slave  was  ever  a  piece  of  property 
whose  vital  processes  were  absolutely  at  the  mas- 
ter's disposal.  In  general,  however,  slaves  were 
sufficiently,  if  not  luxuriously  clad,  and  ate  the 
same  food  as  the  master.3 

The  number  of  slaves  held  in  rich  houses  was 
sometimes  very  large ;  Alcinous  had  fifty  slaves,  not 
counting  the  men ;  and  connected  with  the  house  of 
Odysseus  there  were  about  one  hundred  all  told.4 

However  mild  Homeric  slavery  was,  the  Greek 
none  the  less  loved  his  freedom;  though  the  free 
labourer  might  be  more  miserable  than  the  slave,  he 
yet  valued  his  unrestricted  power  of  going  and 
coming.  The  fundamental  difficulty  of  slave-labour 
was  well  understood ;  however  faithful  some  slaves 
might  be,  the  majority  needed  constant  supervision 
and  correction.  In  the  absence  of  the  master,  all 
was  likely  to  be  neglected  and  go  to  ruin ;  the  slave 
was  but  half  a  man.6 

1  XI,  696-697  ;  i,  HI  ;  111-112  ;  ix,  10;  xvii,  212  ff;  xx,  177  ff; 
297;xxiv,  210;  498  ff. 

2  xxi,  175  ff;  xxii,  475-478. 

8  xi,  190-191;  xiv,  513-514;  520-521  ;  530;  xv, 368;  xxiv,208ff; 
394  ff ;  cf .  Naegelsbach,  274. 

4  vii,  103  ff;  cf.  Richard,  De  Servis  apud  Homerum,  18,  note 
(quoted,  Buchholz,  II,  pt.  2,  70;  cf.  72). 

6  xvii,  321-323;  cf.  Letourneau,  Morale,  184-197;  332-336; 
Polit.,  ch.  XI,  i. 


282  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

The  classes  of  the  Homeric  state,  then,  formed  a 
sort  of  pyramid  :  slaves,  people,  hetairoi,  nobles,  king. 
There  is  no  thinkable  origin  of  the  differentiation  of 
the  upper  classes  except  in  a  forcible  exploitation 
of  a  conquered  majority  by  a  victorious  minority, 
begun  in  some  past  age.1  This  exploitation  had 
been  mitigated  in  the  progress  of  time  and  by 
amalgamation,  as  language,  religion,  and  mores 
gradually  ceased  to  present  barriers  to  assimilation. 
The  stratum  of  the  servile  class  was  coming  to  be 
re-formed  from  exterior  sources  in  Homer's  time, 
later  to  assume  a  wide  development  and  growth.2 

JUSTICE    AND    LAW 

To  secure  its  ultimate  object  of  existence  and 
growth,  that  is,  of  self-maintenance  and  the  exploi- 
tation of  its  neighbours,  the  developing  state  must 
preserve  internal  peace  and  order.  To  meet  the 
requirements  for  national  defence,  not  to  mention 
national  expansion,  a  close  internal  cohesion  is  im- 
perative. The  peace-bond  of  the  family  and  gens 
must  be  widened  and  developed.  The  settlements 
of  disagreements  between  members  of  the  social 
organisation  must  be  taken  from  their  own  hands 
and  speedily  accomplished  with  no  resulting  feuds 
or  permanent  ruptures. 

In  Homer,  law  is  in  its  infancy,  for  the  settlement 

1  Gumplowicz,  Rassk.,  205-240 ;  Geschichtliche  Hinweisungcn, 
ch.  V  of  same ;  cf.  157-163  ;  Soc.  Ill,  art.  2,  114-121. 

2  Cf.  Letoumeau,  Polit.,  283  ff;  ch.  XI,  i. 


GOVERNMENT,   CLASSES,   JUSTICE,   ETC.     283 

of  individual  disputes  has  not  yet  been  taken  from 
the  hands  of  the  parties  immediately  concerned. 
The  rise  of  a  regime  of  law  and  order  is  indicated, 
however,  by  the  fact  that  the  talion  may  give  way 
to  less  primitive  methods  of  exacting  reparation  for 
injury.  The  best  illustration  of  this  development 
is  found  in  the  customs  and  usages  having  to  do 
with  homicide.  Murder,  as  the  most  violent  sub- 
version of  internal  peace  and  order,  was  the  first 
act  of  violence  to  demand  restraint,  and  customs  and 
usages  concerned  with  the  expiation  of  blood-guilt 
developed  antecedently  to  those  involving  penalties 
for  violation  of  property-rights.1 

The  first  treatment  of  homicide  lay  in  direct 
reprisal,  —  blood  for  blood.  This  is  the  common- 
est form  in  Homer.  Instances  of  vengeance- tak- 
ing for  a  companion  fallen  in  war  have  already, 
been  given ; 2  the  dead  man  was  supplied  with  an 
escort  to  the  spirit-world  in  the  person  of  a  foe,  if 
possible.  After  the  death  of  Patroclus,  Achilles 
took  no  more  prisoners,  and  the  blood-vengeance 
descended  upon  all  the  offender's  blood-kin  and 
community,  upon  women  and  innocent  children.3 
Manslaughter  within  one's  own  community  or  tribe 
drew  down  immediate  blood-vengeance  from  the 
brothers  and  other  relations  of  the  slain  man.  This 
was  the  first  course  and  the  one  most  frequently 

1  Cf.  Pietschmann,  285. 

2  Cf.  also  XV,  116  ;  XVI,  398  ;  XVII,  34-38  ;  538-539  ;  XVIII, 
93 ;  100 ;  336-337  ;  etc. ;  Leaf,  363-364. 

3  XXI,  100-105  ;  XXIV,  734-737. 


284  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

pursued.  Public  opinion  was  coming,  however,  to 
approve  a  commutation  of  the  talion  in  the  shape 
of  a  property-indemnity ;  this  custom  had  the 
sanction  of  the  gods  only  in  rare  cases,  as  yet,  for 
the  gods  still  clung  to  the  earlier  and  more  barbar- 
ous feelings  and  mores.1 

Several  illustrations  may  be  given  of  the  taking 
of  vengeance,  showing  its  various  modifications. 
The  seer  Tlepolemus  killed  a  relative  and  fled  before 
the  threats  of  the  blood-kin  of  his  victim ;  for  the 
seer  was  not  exempt  from  pursuit  in  such  a  case. 
The  fate  of  such  a  murderer  was  to  wander  over  the 
earth.  The  mother  of  Meleager  cursed  him  for 
killing  her  brother.2  The  deed  of  Orestes,  who  slew 
the  murderers  of  his  father,  though  one  of  them  was 
his  own  mother,  received  the  greatest  praise;  it  was 
good  fortune  to  leave  behind  such  an  avenger  of 
one's  death.  If  the  son  had  not  exacted  this 
vengeance,  the  brother  would  have  done  so  on  his 
return,  still  more  pitilessly.3  Odysseus  was  per- 
plexed to  know  where  to  flee  after  killing  the 
Suitors  ;  he  and  his  son  did  retire  to  the  country, 
there  to  await  developments  and  the  attack  of  the 
Suitors'  relatives.  Other  cases  of  flight  to  escape 
vengeance    were  not  rare  in  Homer.4     It  made  no 

1  XXIV,  46-54. 

2  II,  661-666  ;  xv,  272  ff ;  IX,  566  ff . 

3  i,  298-299  (cf.  ii,  145) ;  iii,  195  ff ;  249;  256-261. 

*  xx,  42-43;  xxiii,  118-122;  139  ff;  cf.  xxiv,  354-355;  420  ff; 
433-437 ;  they  expected  Odysseus  to  flee  to  Pylos  or  Elis  (xxiv, 
430-431) ;  XVI,  573-574  ;  XXIV,  480-482  ;  xiii,  259. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     285 

difference  whether  the  homicide  was  intentional  or 
not,  or  whether  the  slayer  or  victim  was  a  mere 
boy,  for  the  fact  of  mnrder  was  the  real  issue,  and 
must  be  formally  avenged.  The  father  of  Patroclus 
had  to  take  him  from  his  native  country,  because  in 
a  childish  fit  of  anger  over  a  game  he  had  killed  a 
young  companion.  It  is  noticeable,  however,  that 
mildness  was  gradually  becoming  a  virtue ;  consider- 
ing the  ideas  of  the  time,  the  conduct  of  Achilles 
was  not  pitiless.1 

The  avenger  was  not  obliged  to  receive  the 
commutation  or  wergeld  offered,  though  it  was 
sometimes  accepted,  even  for  a  very  near  relative. 
"  Many  a  man  has  received  an  indemnity  from  the 
murderer  of  his  own  brother,  or  even  of  his  son, 
when  he  (the  victim)  was  dead ;  and  he  (the 
murderer)  has  remained  there,  in  the  country,  after 
paying  a  great  fine,  and  his  (the  avenger's)  heart 
and  noble  soul  have  been  stayed  by  the  receiving 
of  the  penalty." 2  The  arrangement  of  property- 
reparation  seems  to  have  been  left  to  the  parties 
concerned.  On  occasion  of  a  disagreement,  this 
might  come  before  a  council  for  decision.  This 
council,  however,  was  rather  a  body  arbitrating 
between  individuals,  than  a  social  tribunal  with 
power  behind  it  sufficient  to  enforce  its  conclusions. 
It  cannot  be  said  that  the  public  had  taken  the  blood- 

1  XXIII,  85-88  ;  XXIV,  112  ff. 

2  Cf.  XXII,  124  ;  Leaf,  372  ;  IX,  632-636  (quoted  ;  cf.  the  force 
of  "  r' "  in  634). 


286  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

vengeance  into  its  own  hands ;  the  question  before 
the  gerontes  and  people,  in  Homer's  best  example 
of  such  a  "  trial/'  was  whether  payment  of  a  fine 
had  taken  place  or  not.1 

Homicide  was  morally  reprehensible  when  it  ap- 
proached the  form  of  patricide,  or  when  the  victim 
was  a  near  relation ;  a  certain  man  had  planned  to 
kill  his  father,  but  gave  up  the  purpose  when  one 
of  the  gods  suggested  to  his  mind  the  shame  heaped 
upon  the  patricide  by  the  sentiment  of  the  people.2 
The  murder  of  Telemachus  would  have  been  a  "  base 
deed,"  probably  because  of  his  royal  descent  and 
claims  ; 3  while  the  killing  of  a  slave  was  a  thing  of 
little  moment,  since  in  his  case  the  very  begin- 
nings of  a  system  of  reparation  were  lacking  —  slaves 
(and  aliens)  had  no  avengers.  On  the  whole,  there 
was  very  little  blame  attached  to  manslaughter ;  fugi- 
tives such  as  have  been  described  were  kindly  used, 
and  often  attached  to  the  royal  house  as  retainers, 
for  the  king  was  always  anxious  to  strengthen  his 
power  by  the  support  of  those  who  had  no  other 
affiliations.  To  be  a  murderer  was  rather  a  piece  of 
ill-fortune  than  a  crime,  and  if  the  killing  had  been 
done  by  force,  and  with  risk  and  courage,  it  was 
even  honoured  as  an  exhibition  of  manliness  and 
daring. 4 

1  Cf.  Letourneau,  Morale,  102-103  ;  341  ;  XVIII,  497-508. 

2  IX,  458-461 ;  cf.  x,  440-441  ;  xi,  433-434. 
8  xvi,  381-382  ;  401-402. 

4  11,658-670;  XV,  333-336;  429-440;  XVI,  57  Iff;  xiii,  256- 
275  ;  xiv,  379  ff;  cf.  Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  II,  441. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     287 

The  treatment  of  homicide  may  stand  for  the 
general  treatment  of  social  disorder,  except  that 
it  was  more  developed  and  complicated.  The  pen- 
alties for  adultery  have  been  mentioned ;  slaves  who 
assumed  rights  over  themselves  were  killed,  and  an 
adulterous  wife  might  be  repudiated,  in  which  case 
the  price  given  for  her  was  repayable,  and  fines  were 
due  from  the  adulterer.  Of  course  penalties  fell 
only  upon  the  woman,  for  the  question  was  one  of 
property-rights  and  their  violation ;  these  and  other 
such  rights  were  guaranteed  by  force  alone,  as  was 
the  right  of  succession.  The  story  of  the  Suitors, 
their  transgression  and  fate,  attests  the  strength  of 
the  force-guarantee  in  matters  of  property  and  the 
like.  In  this  case  reparation  was  offered  and  re- 
fused.1 The  overstepping  of  property-rights  in  the 
quarrel-episode  of  Agamemnon  and  Achilles  was 
punished  by  misfortune  until  gifts  of  propitiation 
were  made.2  Theft  was  not  morally  reprehensible  ; 
Autolycus  had  a  great  reputation  for  skilful  thiev- 
ing, and  was  quite  respected  for  his  dexterity ;  but 
petty  theft,  such  as  sheep-stealing,  was  regarded  as 
a  mean  business.3 

Two  men  are  introduced,  quarrelling,  measure  in 
hand,  over  the  location  of  their  boundary-stones,  and, 
we  find,  an  orphan's  boundary-stones  might  be  torn 
up  ;4  here,  again,  the  reign  of  law  had  not  yet  begun. 

1  xxii,  55  ff. 

2  IX,  115  ff;  XIX,  249  ff. 

3  X,  266-267;    cf.   111,11;    xiii,  123-124;    XXIV,  262. 

4  XII,  421-423  ;  XXII,  489  ;  cf.  XXIV,  488-489. 


288  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

Punishments  were,  then,  private  matters.  The 
Suitors  threatened  to  impose  a  fine  upon  adherents 
of  Telemachus  ;  dismemberment  is  threatened  to  un- 
faithful slaves ;  the  Centaur  lost  nose  and  ears  for 
the  evil  he  wrought  when  drunk  in  the  house  of 
Peirithous ;  a  lying  beggar  might  be  thrown  from  a 
cliff;  and  for  ill-treatment  of  the  wife  of  Zeus,  Tityus 
endured  eternal  torments.1  Other  punishments  were 
stoning,  suspension  by  the  hands  with  weights  tied 
to  the  feet,  and  exile,  with  mutilation  of  ears.  Self- 
punishment  in  the  form  of  suicide  was  uncommon.2 

The  fact  is  that  guarantees  were  regularly  per- 
sonal affairs  and  matters  of  force.  Hephaestus  would 
not  let  Ares  go  until  he  had  paid  the  adultery-fines, 
though  the  injured  god  accepted  the  word  of  a  more 
responsible  party.3  One's  goods  were  not  safe  un- 
less carefully  guarded  ;  any  passer-by  would  have 
carried  off  the  baggage  of  Odysseus  if  it  had  been 
left  on  the  roadside.4  There  was  no  law  of  custom 
regarding  the  keeping  of  mere  promises  ;  for  special 
occasions  oaths  were  taken.  Thus  the  supernatural 
was  invoked,  and  religious  fear  generally  led  to 
oath-keeping.  The  "  spoken  "  contract  of  Poseidon 
and  Apollo  with  Laomedon  was  a  failure,  and  oaths 
were  not  always  kept.5 

1  ii,  192-193  ;  xviii,  339;  xxi,  298-301 ;  xiv,  399-400;  xi,  576-581. 

2  III,  57  ;  XV,  18-21 ;  XXI,  452-455;  xi,  277-278 ;  cf.  XVIII,  34. 

3  viii,  347  ff . 

4  xiii,  123-124. 

5  XXII,  254-261  ;  XXI,  444-457 ;  cf  II,  339-341 ;  IV,  88  ; 
158  ff;  VI,  233;  VII,  411-412. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.     289 

If,  then,  the  rising  state  had  not  as  yet  laid  its 
hand  with  force  upon  the  internal  regulation  of  so- 
ciety, the  question  arises  as  to  the  real  use  of  the 
"trial,"  and  the  function  of  the  old  men  who  judged 
the  quarrels  of  the  young.1 

There  were  two  forces  in  Homeric  civilisation,  dif- 
fering chiefly  in  name,  which  were  derived  from  the 
past  and  clothed  with  all  the  sanction  of  ances- 
tor reverence  and  religion ;  these  were  dike  and 
themisy  —  what  has  been  "  pointed  out "  and  "  es- 
tablished." The  concepts  connected  with  these  terms 
embraced  all  the  results  of  the  experience  of  preced- 
ing generations  in  the  philosophy  of  living,  and  were 
thus  closely  connected  with  religion,  its  sanctions 
and  ideas.  In  the  purely  religious  sense, the  "just" 
man  was  the  man  who  observed  those  practices 
which  placed  him  upon  the  best  terms  with  the 
higher  powers;2  of  course  u justification"  then  ex- 
tended itself  to  the  observances  of  the  secondary 
social  forms  established  for  a  sufficiently  long  period 
and  with  sufficient  firmness  to  have  gained  divine 
sanction ;  the  shipwrecked  Odysseus  asks  himself, 
"  To  whose  land  now  have  I  come  ?  Are  they  vio- 
lent and  wild  and  unmindful  of  dike,  or  are  they 
those  who  cherish  strangers  and  whose  spirit  is  fear- 
ful of  the  gods  ? "  3  Themis  and  dike  were  used  com- 
monly as   equivalent   to   "  hereditary   custom "   or 

1  xii,  439-440. 

2  ii,  282  ;  Hi,  52-53  ;  133-134  ;  cf.  xvi,  403-404. 
8  xiii,  200-202. 

19 


290  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

"  right " ;  *  in  a  social  sense,  however,  themistes  were 
most  commonly  "hereditary  precedents  of  proce- 
dure."2 These  precedents  covered  the  whole  of 
social  existence  —  the  relations  of  family  life,  of 
property-rights,  of  classes  and  social  status —  and 
reached  out  to  include  in  their  domination  relations 
with  suppliants  and  guest-friends.  The  force  of 
these  norms,  sanctioned  by  the  gods  and  by  revered 
or  even  deified  ancestors,  was  very  great. 

The  counsellors  mentioned  above  were  regularly 
the  old,  or,  at  least,  the  mature ;  men  who  had  had 
experience  and  knew  the  proper  methods  of  pro- 
cedure in  all  cases ;  the  typical  counsellor,  Nestor, 
in  his  lifetime,  had  seen  two  generations  pass  away.3 
Questions  submitted  to  these  counsellors,  then,  were 
settled  according  to  hereditary  precedent.  They  were 
decided  in  the  presence  of  the  people,  who  took  sides 
with  one  or  the  other  party;  the  disputants  were 
eager  to  get  a  decision  from  the  judge  who  was  "  one 
who  knows."  The  gerontes  sat  in  the  sacred  circle 
upon  polished  stones,  and  each  in  his  turn  spoke  his 
judgment.  In  the  midst  lay  two  talents  for  that 
judge  who  should  speak  the  dike  "  straightest."  This 
instance  implies  something  like  a  system ;  the  her- 

1  II,  73;  IX,  134;  XIII,  6;  XIV,  386;  XVI,  796;  XIX,  179- 
183;  XXIII,  542;  iii,  187;  iv,  690-691;  x,  73-74;  xi,  218-219; 
451 ;  xiv,  59;  90-91  ;  130;  xviii,  275;  414;  xix,  43;  168;  xx,  294- 
295 ;  xxiv,  255. 

2  I,  238;  XVI,  387;  XXIII,  581  ff;  XXIV,  652  ;  ii,  65-69;  ix, 
268  ;  xiv,  56  ;  xvii,  363  ;  xviii,  141-142 ;  xxiv,  286. 

8  I,  247  ff;  iii,  244. 


GOVERNMENT,   CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.     291 

aids  and  sceptre  betoken  royal  power,  delegated  to 
members  of  the  council.  Probably  the  two  talents 
were  fees,  one  contributed  by  each  of  the  contending 
parties.1  Chiefly  to  be  noticed,  however,  is  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  unwritten  law  of  ancestral  cus- 
tom, treasured  in  the  minds  of  the  old  and  experi- 
enced, and  reverenced  by  the  people.  To  "  judge  " 
was  to  expound  the  dike  or  themis ;  the  place  of 
judgment  was  called  themis? 

In  one  case  (in  the  spirit-world)  we  find  a  king, 
sceptre  in  hand,  directly  judging  of  questions  pro- 
pounded to  him,i  e.,  explaining  the  dike  and  themis.8 
The  counsellor  is  represented  as  coming  home  from 
the  agore,  where  he  has  been  arbitrating  the  strifes 
of  young  men  ;  Arete,  the  wife  of  the  Phieacian  king, 
is  described,  strangely  enough,  as  performing  the 
same  function.4  Witnesses  are  not  mentioned  in 
the  case  of  the  "  trial."  The  dike  and  themis  were 
under  the  strong  sanction  of  the  gods,  who  loved  not 
deeds  of  violence;  if  men  pronounced  "crooked" 
themistes,  Zeus  punished  them  severely  with  autumn 
floods.5 

The  strength  of  precedent 6  must  have  depended 

i  XVIII,  497-508;  cf.  I,  237-238 ;  cf.  Friedreich,  art.  138-139; 
Buchholz,  II,  pt.  2,  22;  Gladstone,  J.  M.,  56  ff.  Leaf  (312-414) 
seems  to  have  misapprehended  the  situation. 

2  Cf.  Gladstone,  J.  M.,  446-447 ;  VIII,  431  ;  XI,  807 ;  XXIII, 
579-580;  xi,  545 ;  547;  569-570;  Starcke,  Samv.,  311-312. 

8  xi,  568-571. 

4  xii,  439-440  ;  cf.  xi,  186;  vii,  74. 

6  Cf .  xi,  325  ;  XVI,  385-388 ;  xiv,  83-84. 

8  Cf.  Letourneau,  Prop.,  259. 


292  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

largely  upon  this  religious  sanction,  among  a  people 
who  served  the  gods  as  scrupulously  as  did  the  Ho- 
meric Greeks.  The  will  of  the  dead  was  law  ;  what 
was  old,  was  sacred ;  the  epigonoi  were  degenerate 2 
and  must  cling  to  the  wisdom  stored  up  in  customs 
handed  down  from  former  and  wiser  generations. 
In  spite  of  the  reign  of  the  armed  hand,  a  desire  for 
peace  and  undisturbed  possession  of  property  was 
gradually  undermining  the  old  warlike  spirit.  Under 
the  influence  of  transition  in  the  economic  system, 
commutations  and  agreements  were  succeeding  in- 
dividual righting  of  private  wrongs.  Advance  and 
the  growth  of  the  state  demanded  peace,  order,  and 
social  co-operation,  and  would  not  suffer  the  pro- 
longed existence  of  a  narrow  syngenism.  Thus  the 
foundation  of  a  developing  state  was  laid,  and,  in 
its  turn,  the  state-evolution  brought  culture  and 
spurred  on  the  social  forces  to  which  it  owed  its 
rise.2 

In  the  treatment  of  inter-state  relations,  the 
argument  still  turns  upon  the  extension  of  the 
peace-bond.  In  early  ages,  war  with  strangers  (non 
tribesmen)  is  the  first  condition  of  any  external 
contact,  and  introduces  the  possibility  of  later  friendly 
relations.  A  brief  description  of  the  war-customs 
of  Homer's  time  may  throw  some  light  upon  the 
development  of  external  intercourse  on  the  peace 

1  ii,  276-277  ;  cf.  1, 262  ff ;  V,  302-304 ;  XI,  636-637  ;  XII,  381- 
383  ;  447-449 ;  XX,  285-287  ;  cf.  XIII,  6. 

2  Gumplowicz,  Rassk.,  179;  231  ff;  cf.  157-263  ;  205-240. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     293 

footing.  Perhaps  the  greatest  war-motive  of  the 
time  was  the  desire  for  booty ;  there  were  no  organi- 
sation-wars for  the  sake  of  conquest  and  subju- 
gation, while  booty-raids  are  a  distinctive  feature 
of  Homeric  life.  "  Cattle-lifting "  was  the  com- 
monest form  of  the  booty-raid,  and  was  regarded 
as  a  legitimate  method  of  replenishing  one's  flocks 
and  herds  and  gaining  wealth  ;  Odysseus  expected 
thus  in  part  to  repair  the  damage  wrought  by 
the  Suitors.1  A  common  way  of  meeting  death, 
for  a  brave  man,  was  to  be  slain  while  cattle- 
lifting;  Odysseus  asked  Agamemnon  in  the  spirit- 
world  if  he  had  been  killed  on  such  an  expedition  J 
there  was  no  shame  in  it.2  A  suitor's  service  for 
his  bride  might  be  the  capture  of  an  enemy's 
cattle  for  her  father.  These  raids  sometimes  de- 
veloped into  petty  warfare  between  neighbouring 
tribes,  men  in  one  of  the  tribes  having  "  debts " 
due  in  the  other,  and  the  king,  of  course,  repay- 
ing himself  first  from  the  products  of  a  retaliatory 
raid.3 

Among  themselves,  the  Greeks  took  no  prisoners 
who  afterward  became  slaves ;  national  feeling  had 
developed  beyond  that  point.  In  time  of  foreign 
war,  however,  human  booty  was  one  of  the  greatest 
incentives   to   action ;    Greeks   fell   upon   cities   of 

1  I,  155  ff;  367;  IX,  328-329;  XVIII,  520  ff;  XX,  90-93; 
XXI,  37;  iii,  106;  ix,  225-228;  405;  xix,  407-408;  xx,  51;  cf. 
xxiv,  206-207. 

2  xxiii,  356-358  ;  xxiv,  111-112  ;  xi,  399-403. 
8  xi,  288-290  :  XI,  677  ff. 


294  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

strangers  with  no  apparent  provocation,  sacked  and 
burned  the  cities,  slew  the  men,  and  carried  off  the 
women  and  children  as  slaves.  Priam  expected  to 
see  his  sons  slain,  his  daughters  carried  away,  and 
his  grandchildren  dashed  to  the  ground ;  the  noblest 
women  and  children  tnus  came  into  servitude,  and 
expected  such  fate  as  the  outcome  of  an  unsuccessful 
defence.1  Only  occasionally  were  men  taken  and 
sold  over  the  seas  into  slavery ;  men  were  never 
kept  long  in  the  Greek  camp,  though  they  were 
often  retained  for  a  time  awaiting  ransom.2  Kansom, 
however  rich,  was  not  received  when  the  desire  for 
vengeance  was  strong ;  in  that  case  all,  to  the  very 
youngest,  were  to  be  destr6yed.8  In  the  sack  of  a 
great  city,  of  course  much  treasure,  clothing,  etc., 
fell  into  the  eager  hands  of  the  victors ;  and  on  the 
field,  combatants  were  always  anxious  to  strip  their 
victims  of  armour  and  to  capture  horses.4  The 
booty  was  ordinarily  divided  into  prizes,  even  when 
it  was  the  product  of  an  individual  enterprise ;  it 
was  put  into  the  hands  of  the  king,  who  took  the 
largest  and  the  best  prize,  and  then  distributed  others 
to  the  nobles  and  perhaps  to  the  people.     Booty- 

1 IX,  592-594  ;  viii,  527-529 ;  ix,  40-42 ;  xiv,  263-265  ;  XXII. 
62-64;  XXIV,  731-734;  Tylor,  226. 

2  Especially  by  Achilles';  XXII,  44-^5 ;  XXIV,  752-753  ;  cf, 
Gladstone,  Hm.  &  Hm.  Age,  III,  123  ;  XI,  131-135;  XXII,  49  ff; 
cf.  VI,  426. 

»  VI,  46  ff;  55  ff;  XVI,  331-332  ;  XX,  464  ff;  XXIV,  734-736; 
cf.  650-655. 

4  II,  226-227  ;  IX,  365-366  ;  xi,  534;  IV,  466 ;  V,  25  ;  VI,  68-71 ; 
X,  343;  XIII,  260  ff. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     295 

war,  like  piracy,  was  eminently  respectable,  and  was 
presided  over  by  Athena  and  Zeus.1 

In  Homer,  as  in  the  Nibelungen  Lied  and  other 
epics,  the  terrific  deeds  of  single  champions  receive 
an  entirely  disproportionate  share  of  attention ;  the 
common  man  appears  to  have  been  quite  eclipsed.2 
That  the  common  soldier,  however,  counted  for 
something  in  war,  is  proved  by  the  attention  given 
to  discipline  and  tactics. 

Death  was  the  penalty  for  desertion  or  insubordi- 
nation ;  cowardice  was  a  shame,  and  brave  warriors, 
Indian-like,  boasted  in  the  face  of  death.3  The 
type  of  good  order  was  that  the  soldiers  should 
advance  in  silence,  fearing  their  leaders.  In  this 
respect  the  Greeks  and  Trojans  differed  much :  the 
Trojans  regularly  shouted  more  and  were  more  dis- 
orderly ;  they  were  presided  over  by  the  god  of 
brute  force,  Ares,  who  was  regularly  worsted  in 
contest  with  the  goddess  of  discipline  and  order, 
Athena.4  Fighting  was  most  successful  when  it 
was  not  done  desultorily,  but  under  the  direction  of 
tine  tacticians,  in  close  array,  with  shield  support- 
ing shield.  Men  fought  best  in  companies  and  with 
their  own  tribesmen.     Much  always  depended  on 

1  I,  167  ff  ;  VIII,  289;  IX,  592  ff ;  XI,  626-627 ;  v,  40;  IV,  128; 
X,  460;  xiii,  359;  xiv,  86. 

2  Cf.  IV,  397  ;  534  ;  XI,  304-305  ;  XX,  356-358. 

3  II,  391  ff;  XII,  248-250;  XV,  348-350;  I,  171  ;  II,  115;  VI, 
442  ;  XIV,  844-848. 

*  XII,  413  ;  II,  809-810;  VIII,  59;  XVI,  78;  IV,  429  ff;  cf.  Ill, 
218 ;  V,  591  ;  XI,  344  ;  XII,  125 ;  XVII,  88  ;  XXI,  391  ff. 


296  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

the  chief ;  if  he  lost  heart,  the  rest  did,  and  he  was 
responsible  for  the  lives  of  his  people.  Fighting 
was  done  on  foot  or  from  chariots,  with  equal 
facility ;  the  separate  sections  had  regular  captains, 
and  the  greatest  importance  was  assigned  to  the 
horse  and  war-chariot.1  The  finest  tactical  arrange- 
ment of  forces  was  attained  by  placing  horses  and 
chariots  in  the  van,  and  behind  them  the  infantry,  the 
"  bulwark  of  war  "  then  as  ever.  The  cowardly  and 
weak  were  placed  in  the  midst,  and  forced  to  fight. 
This  was  the  good  old  way  of  arranging  forces.2 

The  usual  expedients  of  camp-fortification,  guards, 
signal-fires  for  summoning  aid,  watch-fires,  lookouts, 
duels  of  champions,  spies  —  sometimes  in  disguise, 
and  sometimes  paid  for  their  services  —  and  contri- 
vances like  that  of  the  wooden  horse,  were  in  com- 
mon use.3  Ambushes  were  usual  and  were  regarded 
as  demanding  special  courage,  particularly  at  night, 
when  war  was  generally  stopped  ;  the  wounded  were 
regularly  rescued  and  carried  from  the  field.4 

Defeated  armies  attempted  at  once  to  withdraw 
into  some   fortified   town ; 5    siege   lines   were   not 

1  III,  77  ;  VIII,  562-563 ;  IX,  84-86 ;  V,  530-532  ;  VII,  380 ; 
XIII,  130-133;  XV,  360;  618;  XVI,  168-173  ;215ff  ;  XVIII,  298; 
xx,  49  ;  II,  553  ff  ;  XXI,  206-207  ;  XXII,  99-107  ;  383 ;  XII,  76  ff 
(cf.  ix,  49-50)  ;  XV,  517  ;  xviii,  263-264. 

2  IV,  293-311. 

8  VII,  433ff;  371;  XVIII,  208-213  ;  VIII,  509-511;  XIV,  8; 
III,  16  ff ;  X,  1  ff ;  213  ff ;  304 ;  iv,  244  ff  ;  272  ff ;  viii,  492  ff. 

4  I,  227ff;IV,  392 ff;  XIII,  277  ff;  XXIV,  779  ;  xiv,  217-218; 
II,  387  ;  VII,  282 ;  V,  663  ff  ;  VIII,  334 ;  etc. 

6  XV,  737-738  ;  Tylor,  228. 


GOVERNMENT,   CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.     297 

drawn  closely,  but  much  time  was  spent  in  laying 
waste  the  surrounding  country  and  settlements. 
In  the  siege  of  Ilion,  the  Trojans'  great  object  was 
of  course  to  burn  the  ships,  when  they  would  have 
the  Greeks  at  their  mercy ;  the  city  itself  had  spent 
great  resources  in  withstanding  the  ten  years'  siege, 
and,  though  greatly  straitened,  still  at  the  end  of 
that  period  held  much  riches.1  A  great  deal  of 
Trojan  property  passed  into  the  hands  of  neighbour- 
ing nations,  probably  in  hiring  allies ;  also  treasure 
was  smuggled  out  of  the  besieged  city  to  remain 
safe  in  another  land.  The  old  men,  the  women,  and 
the  young  helped  to  defend  a  beleaguered  city  in 
desperate  straits.2 

Yet  war  was  not  passionately  loved  by  the  Greeks ; 
there  was  a  rising  sentiment  against  it,  probably  in 
consequence  of  developing  trade  and  other  economic 
conditions.  It  was  regarded  as  hard  and  cruel,  and 
savagery  entered  into  it  only  in  the  heat  and 
excitement  of  victory,  or  in  consequence  of  deeply 
stirred  revenge.  The  persons  of  ambassadors  and 
heralds  were  sacred  with  men  of  honour,  and  truces 
were  gladly  given  for  the  burial  of  the  dead  or  the 
discussion  of  possible  compromise.3  Greeks  and 
Trojans  were  quite  willing  to  cease  from  war,  and 
the  gods  were  blamed  for  the  breaking  of  the  truce. 
Truces  were  concluded  with  sacred  oaths  and  a  sort 

1  XV,  504-505  ;  VI,  289  ff ;  VIII,  505-507  ;  IX,  401  ff. 

2  XVIII,  291-292;  XXIV,  381-382  ;  VIII,  517  ff. 

3  III,  76  ff;  VII,  375  ff. 


298  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

of  foundation-sacrifice,  and  the  oath-breaker  was 
cursed.  Only  death  and  woes  came  of  such  perjury, 
for  Zeus  sanctioned  the  keeping  of  pledges.1  All 
these  modifications  of  the  war  of  extermination  are 
marks  of  advancing  culture  and  mutual  sympathy. 
The  sanction  of  the  gods  intervened  to  stop  indis- 
criminate slaughter  and  the  use  of  poisoned  weapons  ; 
the  story  goes  that  Odysseus  made  a  journey  to  get 
poison  for  his  arrows,  but  the  man  to  whom  he 
applied  would  not  give  the  poison, "  since  (of  course) 
he  reverenced  the  ever-living  gods."  2 

Throughout  Homeric  life  there  are  survivals  of 
the  formerly  prevailing  narrow  tribal  sentiment. 
The  inter-tribal  booty-raids  and  consequent  petty 
warfare,  such  as  that  between  the  Eleans  and 
Pylians  ;  piracy ;  the  retention  of  a  non-tribesman's 
property,  as  when  Augeas  kept  the  horses  of  Neleus, 
sent  to  compete  in  games ;  the  virtual  support  which 
the  Trojan  people  lent  to  the  unjust  deeds  of  Paris, 
though  they  hated  him  personally;  the  desire  to 
compete  with  strangers  and  prove  superior  to  them ; 
—  all  these  practices  and  customs  were  of  syngenetic 
origin  and  had  not  yet  passed  away.3  The  case  of 
the  king  Echetus,  who  slew  all  strangers,  and  that 
of  the  Cyclopes  and  Lsestrygonians,  who  devoured 
guests  relentlessly,  were  rougher  phases  of  the 
same  narrow  tribal  spirit.4 

»  IV,  235. 

2  xxiv,  482-486  ;  534  ff  ;  i,  260-263  (quoted) ;  cf.  ii,  328  ff. 

3  XI,  698  ff;  VII,  350-393;  III,  205  ff ;  451-454;  V,  804  ff. 

4  xviii,  85  ff ;  ix,  166  ff;  x,  81  ff. 


GOVERNMENT,   CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     299 

As  war,  however,  was  becoming  more  humane,  so 
guarantees  outside  of  the  bounds  of  the  tribe  or 
circumscribed  group  were  being  formed.  The  Greeks 
were  an  "  active  "  race ; !  with  them  inertia  before  a 
possibility  of  advance  was  at  a  minimum.  Minds 
were  alive  and  elastic,  eager  and  curious  concerning 
external  happenings,  and  bent  upon  an  enthusiastic 
pursuit  of  material  welfare.  In  all  the  phases  of 
Greek  life  are  found  evidences  of  this  receptivity  of 
mind  and  eagerness  for  advance,  impulses  which 
work  powerfully  toward  the  decay  of  syngenetic 
feelings  and  customs,  and  toward  the  evolution  of 
amalgamation  and  nationalisation.  Toward  this  end 
one  of  the  chief  contributors  is  a  body  of  traditions 
and  usages  connected  with  strangers,  suppliants, 
guests,  and  guest-friends.2  Since  the  stranger 
became  at  once  a  guest,  and  since  a  guest  was  for- 
ever afterward  a  guest-friend,  this  body  of  ideas  and 
practices  is  appropriately  called  guest-friendship. 

Where  syngenetic  feeling  is  strong,  "  stranger " 
means  "  enemy  "  ;  it  had  no  such  signification  to  the 
genuine  Greek  of  Homer's  time.  The  stranger,  at 
his  arrival,  was  at  once  addressed  as  xeinos,  and 
welcomed  with  fine  courtesy ;  only  the  deepest 
domestic  troubles  led  to  neglect  of  strangers.3  No 
questions  were  asked  until  the  newcomer  had  par- 
taken of  food  and  drink,  and  thus  identified  himself 

1  Lippert,  I,  43  ff. 

2  Cf.  Gladstone,  J.  M.,  388. 

8  iv,  277  ;  i,  120  ff ;  xiv,  45-47  ;  xix,  134-135. 


300  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

with  the  host  and  his  interests ;  for  when  men  had 
taken  food  and  drink  together,  their  "  brotherhood  " 
was  symbolically  established.1  Strangers  were  wel- 
come to  feasts  and  sacrifices,  were  made  participants 
of  them,  and  were  given  the  places  of  honour  —  all 
this  before  their  identity  was  known.  Menelaus  is 
represented  as  feeling  great  irritation  at  the  idea  of 
sending  strangers  on  to  some  other  host;  he  felt 
and  expressed  his  sense  of  reciprocal  obligation  for 
the  hospitality  extended  to  himself  during  his  own 
wanderings.2 

During  his  stay  (and  his  departure  must  neither 
be  hastened  nor  delayed  against  his  will),  the 
stranger  must  suffer  no  harm  —  that  would  be  a 
shame  to  his  host ;  while  he  remained,  it  was  not 
in  accordance  with  dike  that  the  guest  should  suffer 
lack  of  anything  his  host  could  provide,  and  at  his 
departure  he  was  presented  with  valuable  xeinia 
in  remembrance.3  In  short,  every  liberty  and 
privilege  was  granted  to  the  stranger  within  the 
gates ;  he  was  cherished  as  a  brother  by  the  right- 
minded  man.4 

These  guests  were  not  always  persons  of  noble 
birth  ;  any  one  who  "  came  "  5  was  welcome,  though 

1  XXI,  75-76;  i,  120  ff;  iv,  60  ff ;  xiv,  158-159;  xxi,  28-92. 

2  iii,  34-41 ;  cf.  Buchholz,  II,  pt.  2,  43;  Friedreich,  231  ff ;  Leaf, 
345 ;  iv,  28-36. 

8  xv,  68-74;   xviii,  215  ff;  xiv,  37-38;  XVIII,  387;   408;  iii, 
485-490;  iv,  591-592;  600;  xv,  186-188;  xx,  294-295. 
*  viii,  546-547. 
6  Cf.  "proiktes";  "hiketes." 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,   JUSTICE,   ETC.     301 

of  course  ancestral  friends  were  most  heartily 
received.  Beggars  were  classed  directly  with 
xeinoi ;  the  disguised  beggar  Odysseus  was  hon- 
oured with  the  best  food,  and  reverence  was  paid 
to  his  age  and  misfortunes ;  when  he  spoke  of 
departing  so  as  to  relieve  his  host  of  the  burden, 
the  host,  a  poor  swine-herd,  was  incensed  at  the 
thought  and  bade  him  stay  on.1 

Guests  were  often  suppliants ;  this  type  of  man 
was  generally  a  fugitive,  fleeing  from  the  relatives 
of  some  tribesman  whom  he  had  slain,  intentionally 
or  otherwise.  The  suppliant  sought  the  protection 
of  the  hearth's  sanctity,  was  regularly  received  as 
an  unfortunate,  treated  with  the  utmost  kindness, 
and,  if  brave  and  of  good  birth,  often  became  a 
hetairos  to  his  host's  son.2  The  terms  suppliant  and 
guest  are  used  together  frequently ;  in  a  certain 
sense  every  guest  was  a  suppliant  to  his  host,  in 
those  days.  The  suppliant,  however,  was  generally 
in  some  plight  that  required  considerable  aid ;  he 
was  a  special  sort  of  guest. 

Such  extended  hospitality,  such  unguarded  trust 
in  a  perfect  stranger,  is  remarkable  in  any  age  of 
the  world  ;  a  host  virtually  placed  himself  and  all 
his  at  the  will  and  mercy  of  his  guest.  He  must 
have  felt  great  faith  in  some  strong  guarantee 
which   safeguarded    the   integrity  of   this  relation. 

1  xiv,  57-58;  437-441  ;  xv,  309  ;  335  ff. 

2  IX,  485  ff;  XI,  786  ff;  XVI,  574  ff;  XXIII,  85  ff;  vii,  153- 
154  ;  xv,  223-224. 


302  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

Such  a  guarantee  was  afforded  in  all  needed 
strength  by  the  heavy  religious  sanctions  which 
rested  upon  all  the  relations  of  host  and  guest.  The 
proper  conduct  of  the  host,  as  well  as  his  duty  of 
receiving  the  guest,  was  strongly  emphasised  by  the 
gods ;  they  might  go  about  in  disguise,  observing 
the  actions  of  mortals  to  see  if  they  treated  their 
guests  rightly.1  Though  the  majority  of  divine  in- 
junctions had  to  do,  naturally  enough,  with  the  re- 
ception and  respect  to  be  accorded  to  strangers,  still 
the  guest's  conduct  also  was  prescribed.  No  right- 
minded  man  would  consent  to  surpass  his  host  even 
in  athletic  contests,  much  less  to  steal  his  property. 
An  oath  by  the  host's  table  or  hearth  was  a  sacred 
one.2  It  is  not  hard,  therefore,  to  understand  how 
a  violation  of  this  host-guest  relation  could  bring  on 
a  Trojan  war.  Menelaus  prayed  to  Zeus,  as  he  took 
part  in  the  ordeal-trial,  for  victory,  in  order  that  the 
rights  of  hosts  might  be  upheld ;  in  another  place 
he  speaks  with  contempt  and  wrath  of  those  who 
rob  the  man  who  is  entertaining  them.3 

The  host  had,  then,  strong  religious  sanctions  to 
warrant  his  unguardedness.  Doubtless  his  mind  was 
satisfied  in  the  belief  that  the  gods  would  render  his 
risks  secure,  and  it  never  occurred  to  him  to  ask  for 
a  more  rational  explanation  of  his  own  hospitality. 
A.ny  evidence  as  to  the  origins  of  this  guest-friend- 

1  ix,  270-271  ;  xiv,  56-58;  386-389;  xvii,  483-487. 

2  viii,  208-211  ;  xiv,  158-159. 
8  III,  351-354  ;  XIII,  623-627. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     303 

ship  must  be  given  by  Homer  unconsciously,  if  at 
all.  The  presence  of  the  religious  sanctions  in  such 
number  and  strength  indicates  that  the  birth  of  the 
host-guest  relation  took  place  in  the  more  or  less  re- 
mote past ;  this  is  witnessed  to  also  by  the  complete- 
ness of  the  relation's  development.  Apparently  the 
origins  of  guest-friendship  lay  in  the  reachings-forth 
of  a  developing  people  toward  an  advance  and  to- 
ward a  further  and  larger  acquaintance  with  a  world 
of  greater  material  wealth  and  luxury  than  their  own  ; 
that  is,  the  hospitality  and  love  of  guests  so  charac- 
teristic of  the  Homeric  Greek  were  another  product 
of  the  contact  with  the  higher  Eastern  civilisation. 
The  tribes  of  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  and  their 
immediate  ancestors,  lived  in  a  prosperous  and 
populous  culture-stage  of  combined  cattle-raising 
and  agriculture;  conditions  of  life  were  such  as  to 
leave  the  lords  of  the  people,  if  not  the  people 
themselves,  free  from  the  most  grinding  needs  and 
from  the  enervating  alternation  of  satiety  and  want. 
Settling  in  a  land  little  suited  to  a  continuance  of 
nomadic  life,  and  brought  under  the  direct  influence 
of  the  high  civilisations  of  the  East,  attention  was 
turning  to  other  ideas  and  pursuits  than  those  to 
which  the  earlier  tribesmen  had  been  attached  —  to 
the  sea  and  to  commerce,  that  is,  to  the  outside 
world.  The  people  were  eager  to  learn,  and  men 
were  their  only  books ;  a  stranger,  who,  if  he  were 
not  himself  a  Phoenician,  could  yet  describe  the 
wonders  of  those  magical  foreign  lands,  was  a  rare 


304  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

treasure  to  an  isolated  community.  People  came  to 
be  very  fond  of  entertaining,  and  gladly  accommo- 
dated another  man's  guest  in  his  absence.  One  man 
is  mentioned  who  had  a  house  on  the  public  road 
and  entertained  every  one  who  came;  a  man  was 
the  more  respected  for  entertaining  freely.1  In  time 
the  real  practical  value  of  the  relation  became  more 
and  more  apparent,  and  Zeus  became  the  guardian 
of  strangers,  who  were  the  heralds  of  the  time's 
advance.2  Eagerness  for  news,  for  tales  of  the 
exterior  world,  its  people  and  doings,  is  marked  ; 
it  is  characteristic  of  an  energetic,  isolated  com- 
munity.3 Whether  guest-friendship  is  to  be  regarded 
as  an  institution  of  more  than  local  importance  or 
not,  its  origin  seems  to  have  been  taken  from  a 
period  several  centuries  earlier  than  the  Homeric 
age,  and  to  have  been  due  chiefly  to  the  quickening 
contact  with  an  older  and  more  polished  civilisation. 
The  Greeks  identified  the  customs  of  guest-friend- 
ship with  civilisation  and  culture.  Examples  of 
dishonour  of  guests  are  connected  with  the  cannibal- 
istic Cyclopes,  the  Lsestrygonians,  and  other  such 
crude  beings  and  monsters  ; 4  it  is  only  lawless  and 
violent  men  who  carry  on  such  practices.  The 
Suitors  turned  strangers  away  by  their  treatment 

i  xv,  545-546;  VI,  14-15;  I74ff;  217;  xix,  239-240. 

2  III,  351-354 ;  XIII,  623-627  ;  ix,  270-271  ;  xiv,  56-58  ;  388- 
389  ;  xvii.  485-487. 

8  i,  170-172;  iv,  595  ff ;  xiv,  124  ff;  xvii,  518-521;  Sumner, 
U.  L. 

*  ix,  106  ff ;  x,  81  £  j  xii,  39  ff ;  245  ft. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES.   JUSTICE,   ETC.     305 

of  them  and  suggested  their  sale  into  slavery.1  As 
for  the  Cyclopes,  it  is  noticeable  that  they  were 
especially  godless,  violent,  and  syngenetic;  against 
their  deeds  appeal  was  made  to  Zeus  Xeinios.  As 
the  Cyclops  Polyphemus  devoured  the  companions 
of  Odysseus,  he  and  his  men  held  up  their  hands  to 
Zeus;  and  by  the  aid  of  Zeus  the  monster  was 
blinded.2  Besides  these  lawless  tribes,  the  Trojan 
Paris,  and  the  Suitors,  some  of  the  ancient  heroes 
were  guilty  of  breaches  of  the  host-guest  relation, 
notably  Heracles ;  for  he  slew  one  to  whom  he  had 
offered  the  hospitality  of  his  table, — a  terrible  crime.3 
The  best  evidence  to  show  that  the  kindly  relation, 
between  host  and  guest  was  the  gauge  of  a  people's 
civilisation  is  given  by  the  shipwrecked  unfortu- 
nate ;  the  first  question  of  such  an  one  as  to  the 
people  among  whom  he  is  thus  thrown,  is  :  Are 
they  just  ?  Are  they  godfearing  ?  Do  they  respect 
strangers  ?  These  qualities  are  contrasted  with 
rudeness  and  injustice.4 

From  the  reception  of  the  stranger  and  the 
hospitality  accorded  to  him  arose  an  enduring 
relation,  guest-friendship  proper.  After  eating  and 
drinking  together,  the  two  parties  stood  in  a  close 
mutual  relation,  which  was  strong  enough  to  endure 
for  generations ;  the  reciprocal  duties  and  rights  of 
the  parties  were  made  permanent.     A  strong  sense 

1  xvi,  108  ;  xvii,  398-399  ;  xx,  381-383. 

2  ix,  294-295  ;  478-479. 
8  xxi,  27-29. 

4  vi,  119-121  ;xiii,  200-202. 
20 


306  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

of  mutual  good-will  was  engendered,  the  gifts  at  trie 
guest's  departure  standing  as  a  symbol  of  the  bond 
and  not  suffering  its  memory  to  fade  ;  the  importance 
of  these  gifts  as  symbols  is  shown  by  a  case  where 
gifts  alone  established  the  host-guest  relation, 
although  the  parties  were  never  to  enjoy  each  other's 
hospitality.1  The  once  established  relation  afforded 
to  each  of  the  parties  and  to  his  children  a  special 
sponsor  in  a  strange  land,  a  land  where  otherwise 
he  could  claim  no  acquaintance ;  the  obligations 
descended  upon  the  houses  of  the  respective  parties, 
in  the  death  or  absence  of  the  original  guest-friends. 
Such  an  ancestral  relation  was  particularly  holy  and 
strong,  and  treasured  in  the  traditions  of  the  family. 
Mutual  visits  preserved  the  bond,  and  consequent 
diffusion  of  knowledge,  tending  toward  amalgamation 
of  ethnic  elements,  was  among  the  results.2 

A  further  form  of  this  bond  is  not  unparalleled 
in  ethnography ;  for  it  resembles  closely  the  system 
of  "  brotherhoods "  common  elsewhere.3  It  has 
been  stated  that  eating  and  drinking  together 
established  a  sort  of  brotherhood ;  in  time  of  war 
such  brothers  were  expected  to  perform  certain 
services  for  each  other.  A  guest-friend  was  bound 
to  make  all  effort  to  rescue  the  dead  body  of  his 
xeinos  for   burial,  and   sometimes   a   prisoner  was 

1  iv,  591-592  j  600 ;  etc. ;  xxi,  34-37. 

a  VI,  315  ft;  i,  175-189;  xv,  196-198;  xvii,  522  ff;  xix,  191  ff; 
xxiv,  263  ff. 

8  Cf.  Letourneau,  Polit.,  220;  Sieukiewicz,  Pan  Michael,  164; 
234 ;  Tylor,  423-424. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     307 

ransomed  from  slavery  and  set  free,  with  gifts,  by  a 
guest-friend.1  Ancestral  guest-friends  would  not 
contend  in  battle.  On  the  plain  of  Troy,  Glaucus 
of  Lycia  and  Diomed  of  Argos  met  for  combat; 
before  they  fought,  Diomed  asked  his  opponent  his 
name  and  ancestry.  Glaucus,  with  the  usual  race- 
pride,  gave  his  genealogy  in  detail.  Hearing  this 
Diomed  exclaimed  :  "  But  you  are  an  ancestral  guest- 
friend  of  mine  ;  we  cannot  fight.  Let  us  avoid  each 
other  in  combat,  and  exchange  armour  as  a  symbol 
of  our  relation."  This  they  did,  with  mutual 
pledges.  The  instance  witnesses  for  many  features 
of  guest-friendship :  the  care  with  which  its  tradi- 
tions were  preserved  in  the  family,  the  detailed 
knowledge  of  a  guest-friend's  ancestry,  the  symbolism 
of  gifts,  the  mutual  sponsorship,  etc.2 

The  many  advantages  of  this  relation  of  guest- 
friendship  need  scarcely  to  be  indicated ;  one  of  its 
greatest  services  was  of  course  to  the  traveller. 
Without  this  free  hospitality,  travel  would  hardly 
have  been  possible ;  the  wayfarer  could  not  take  a 
band  of  retainers  to  defend  him  and  forage  for  him, 
nor  could  he  take  with  him  cattle  or  treasure,  with 
which  to  pay  his  bills.  The  host  acted  as  defender, 
food-provider,  banker,  sponsor,  escort ;  all  the  needs 
of  the  traveller  were  his  host's  to  supply,  from  bath 

1  XIII,  660-661  ;  XVII,  150  ff  (cf.  229  ff)  ;  XXI,  42. 

2  VI,  1 45  ff ;  the  ancestors  of  Glaucus  were  Greeks,  this  indicat- 
ing migrations  from  Greece  to  Asia  Minor;  guest-friends  would  be 
especially  valuable  so  far  from  home,  for  both  parties ;  cf .  VI,  224- 
225. 


308  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

and  bed  to  conveyance  on  sea  or  land,  and  all  these 
duties  were  willingly  discharged  for  the  sake  of  the 
reciprocal  claim  upon  the  guest.  Diomed  witnesses 
to  this  in  the  passage  to  which  attention  has  been 
called:  "  So  now  I  am  your  dear  host  in  the  midst 
of  Argos,  and  you  mine  in  Lycia,  when  I  visit  that 
people." 2  Within  range  of  this  custom,  therefore, 
travel  became  possible  and  not  very  hazardous,  and 
so  arose  diffusion  of  culture  and  mutual  knowledge  ; 
the  barrier  of  tribal  narrowness  was  falling,  for  the 
stranger  was  a  friend.  And  when  we  find  that 
some  such  relation  was  recognised  in  Phoenicia  and 
Egypt,2  its  far-reaching  importance  in  the  education 
of  Greece  becomes  still  more  apparent. 

The  stern  safeguarding  of  the  integrity  of  this 
relation  would  follow  almost  instinctively  upon  a 
realisation  of  its  value.  Public  and  private,  and 
probably  local  and  national,  interests,  would  here 
unite.  It  has  been  shown  that  desire  for  vengeance 
upon  a  perfidious  guest  was  the  prime  motive  of 
the  Trojan  war;  whether  the  allies  of  the  injured 
Menelaus  were  led  to  fight  the  Trojans  for  his 
(and  Agamemnon's)  sake  alone,  or  whether,  as  ap- 
pears more  probable,  a  personal  interest  in  the 
integrity  of  the  violated  relation  roused  their  re- 
sentment,—  at  any  rate,  without  guest-friendship 
and  its  anti-syngenetic  power,  such  a  united  move- 
ment  would   have   been   impossible.     Agamemnon 

1  VI,  224-225. 

2  iv,  125  f£  ;  617-619 ;  cf.  xiv,  246  ff ;  Pietschmann,  285-286. 


GOVERNMENT,   CLASSES,  JUSTICE,  ETC.     309 

and  Menelaus  enlisted  their  guest-friends  by  the 
story  of  the  latter's  wrongs,  and  in  the  wideness  of 
the  circle  of  their  well-wishers  and  acquaintances 
lay  the  success  of  their  undertaking.1  Such  a 
united  movement  as  the  Trojan  expedition,  for 
which  more  than  29  peoples,  1100  ships,  and  (ac- 
cording to  the  ancients)  about  100,000  men,  mus- 
tered at  Aulis,  is  a  veritable  wonder  under  a 
non-despotic  government,  even  if  large  discounts  be 
made  from  these  estimates.2  Genghis  Khan  or 
Tamerlane  might  have  been  proud  of  it,  and  yet  the 
expedition  was  a  union  of  politically  independent 
peoples.  The  mutual  need  of  acquaintance,  of 
security  in  travel  and  business,  of  external,  stimu- 
lating communication,  projecting  itself  upon  the 
body  of  mores  in  the  form  of  guest-friendship,  was 
the  most  powerful  factor  in  this  great  result. 

Such  an  aggregation  of  allies  was  hardly  held 
together  for  so  extended  a  period  by  allegiance  to 
one  or  two  kings,  however  rich  and  powerful.3 
The  element  of  personal  service  is  not  infrequently 
brought  out,  both  by  the  chiefs  and  by  Mene- 
laus ; 4  still  it  seems  that  the  allies  were,  in  general 
attitude,  less  eager  to  aid  the  king  (Menelaus  or 
Agamemnon)    than    to    aid    an    injured    host    to 

1  XI,  769-770;  XXIII,  296  ff;  xxiv,  115-119. 

2  Cf.  Seymour,  Iliad,  Notes  on  the  Catalogue  ;  II,  494. 
8  II,  286  ff;  339-341. 

4  I,  152  ff ;  XVII,  92-93;  XXIII,  607-609  ;  v,  307  (but  cf.  XV, 
449 ;  XVII,  225-226) ;  xiv,  70-71  ;  there  seems  to  have  been  some 
"  buying  off"  from  Agamemnon  (XXIII,  297  ;  cf.  XI,  20  ff). 


310  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

vengeance  upon  a  treacherous  guest  and  his  whole 
tribe.  The  feeling  of  the  allies  had  more  than 
allegiance  in  it,1  and  from  the  ensemble  of  the  Iliad 
it  appears  that  the  evident  thirst  for  vengeance 
(and  for  booty,  of  course)  considerably  out-weighs 
any  expressed  desires  of  serving  the  sons  of  Atreus. 
The  whole  force  of  public  opinion  supported  the 
expedition  in  a  manner  which  indicates  a  collective 
aim  to  avenge  an  attack  upon  a  collective  possession ; 
the  integrity  of  guest-friendship  was  certainly  a 
far  more  vital  matter  to  all  Greece  than  intertribal 
alliances  were  to  the  separate  tribes,  though  the  latter 
are  found  to  have  been  of  high  local  importance.2 

There  remain  several  cases  of  guest-friendship 
which  exhibit  peculiarities  valuable  as  throwing 
light  upon  the  system,  though  they  were  not  ne- 
cessarily regular  phases  of  it.  Among  the  Phaeacians, 
Odysseus,  though  the  guest  of  Alcinous,  was,  by  the 
latter's  command,  the  recipient  of  gifts  from  each  of 
the  sub-kings.  The  donation  seems  to  have  been  a 
state-function,  for  the  people  finally  paid  for  all  the 
hospitality  of  these  princes.  The  host  of  Odysseus  in 
Crete  also  had  recourse  to  taxing  the  people  to  pay 
for  his  generosity ;  from  them  he  collected  the  grain 
which  he  gave  to  his  guest.  Further,  in  Phseacia, 
the  king  and  assembly  provided  Odysseus  with  con- 
veyance to  his  native  land,  jointly  ; 3  elsewhere  the 
guest  was  a  purely  personal  burden  or  acquisition. 

1  II,  354-356  ;  IX,  42  f£;  etc. 

2  xiv,  238-239  ;  xvi,  424-430. 

8  viii,  389-393;  xiii,  13-15  ;  xix,  197  ;  vii,  189ff. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     311 

The  presents  received  by  the  guest  were  an  im- 
portant feature;  tours  were  sometimes  a  means  of 
collecting  wealth.  Odysseus  waited  for  the  Cy- 
clops's return  to  his  cave  in  order  to  get  a  gift,  and 
asked  for  it  in  a  matter-of-fact  way ;  thus  he  seems 
to  have  done  elsewhere.  He  delayed  a  long  time 
among  the  Phseacians  in  order  to  collect  property, 
and  was  regarded  as  clever  for  so  doing.1  Menelaus 
offered  to  take  Telemachus  the  round  of  the  Achaean 
cities,  assuring  him  that  no  one  would  deny  them 
presents ;  a  guest  was  urged  to  stay  and  get  a 
valuable  present  at  departure.2  Guest-friends  were 
also  valuable  in  a  business  way ;  we  are  told  that 
Ithaca  was  too  stony  and  mountainous  for  the 
raising  of  horses  and  cattle,  and  elsewhere  we  find 
that  the  horses  and  cattle  of  the  Ithacans  were 
pastured  in  Elis  and  on  the  mainland.  There 
xeinoi  of  Odysseus  and  his  own  herdsmen  cared  for 
them;3  evidently  arrangements  of  this  kind  were 
common  between  xeinoi,  which  led  to  mutual  ad- 
vantages and  benefits. 

Guest-friendship  thus  reaches  out  into  all  the 
phases  of  social  life  ;  whether  it  was  an  institution 
or  not,  it  was  a  tangible,  vigorous,  social  factor,  and 
its  importance  at  that  stage  of  civilisation  is  scarcely 
to  be  over-estimated.  Certainly  the  Greek  states  of 
that  time  were  far  nearer  a  voluntary  unity  than 
they  have  ever    been  since.     The  united    Eastern 

1  ix,  267-268 ;  xxiv,  279 ;  xix,  278-286. 

2  xv,  80-85  ;  i,  309-313.         8  iv,  635  ff;  xx,  187-188;  xiv,  100  ff. 


312  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

movement  of  336-323  b.  c.  was  far  less  national 
in  character,  and  was  under  a  despot's  hand  and 
leadership,  while  the  Trojan  expedition  was  a  vol- 
untary vindication  of  the  right  of  a  young,  vigorous 
nation  to  grow  and  gather  culture. 

This  expedition,  under  whatever  motives  gathered, 
was  a  remarkable  exhibition  of  collective  action  for 
that  age  of  the  world,  as  was  the  counter-alliance 
which  defended  Ilion.  It  is  noticeable  that  former 
expeditions  and  alliances  were  matters  of  tradition 
to  Homer;  Priam  had  been  an  ally  of  the  Phrygians  ; 
the  Theban  expedition,  like  the  Trojan,  was  gath- 
ered by  visiting  the  various  cities  and  soliciting  vol- 
unteers ;  and  Nestor  was  called  from  afar  to  assist  in 
the  destruction  of  the  "  Mountain-beasts." 1  These 
ancient  undertakings  were  small  compared  with  the 
one  against  Ilion  ;  Agamemnon  was  the  greatest  king 
that  had  ever  been  known,  and  to  the  forces  that 
mustered  at  Aulis  practically  all  Greece  contributed. 
The  members  of  this  great  confederation  all  spoke  the 
same  language,  followed  the  same  religious  system, 
and  practised  like  mores  ;  their  discipline  was  good, 
and  though  bound  only  by  oath,  a  common  desire  for 
vengeance  and  booty  led  to  a  remarkably  consistent 
collective  policy.  The  close  co-operation  of  the  Greek 
contingents  is  a  fine  example  of  social  enterprise  for 
any  age ;  between  the  members  of  the  several  con- 
tingents few  of  those  barriers  remained  which  are 
wont  to  restrict  social  amalgamation. 

1  III,  188  ff  ;  IV,  377  ff  ;  I,  260  ff. 


GOVERNMENT,    CLASSES,  JUSTICE,   ETC.     313 

The  Greek  confederation  is  the  better  understood 
by  contrast  with  the  Trojan  alliance,  which  could 
never  have  formed  a  conquering  state.  The  Trojan 
organisation  was  loose  and  weak ;  differences  in  lan- 
guage caused  much  confusion ;  the  paid  allies  de- 
fended poorly,  because  they  had  no  real  interest  at 
stake  and  were  ever  ready  to  withdraw,  unless  care- 
fully humoured.1  Some  of  the  allies  were  people 
from  tribes  which  apparently  had  had  an  offensive 
and  defensive  alliance  with  Priam,  and  to  whom 
goods  might  be  sent  for  safe-keeping.2  Most  of  the 
allies,  however,  came  from  afar,  and  some  exhibit 
a  certain  crudeness  and  barbarity.3  The  fact  that 
such  a  collection  of  peoples  could  have  been  brought 
together  for  a  given  object  attests  growing  inter- 
course and  communication  between  distant  lands ; 
but  they  were  a  heterogeneous  horde,  and,  in  Homer's 
mind,  plainly  contrasted  with  the  genuine  Greeks. 

Among  the  Greeks,  alliances  which  united  the 
interests  of  tribes  not  far  apart,  seem  to  have  been 
common  and  highly  valued;  the  Ithacans  and 
Thesprotians  were  allied,  and  an  Ithacan  who  vio- 
lated this  alliance  was  saved  from  death  only  by  the 
king's  influence.4 

In  Greece,  also,  the  knowledge  of  peoples  con- 

1  II,  803  ff;  867;  IV,  437;  X,  420  ff;  XVII,  225-226;  XVI, 
538  ff;  XVII,  142  ff. 

2  XIII,  793  ;  XXIV,  382  ;  cf.  543-545. 

*  II,  848;  867;  872;  V,  478-479;  XVII,  220  ff;  XX,  485 ; 
XXI,  156  ff. 

4  xvi,  424-430. 


314  HOMERIC  SOCIETY 

cerning  each  other  was  beginning  to  be  widened  by 
the  establishment  of  Games,1  and,  as  has  been  said, 
marriage  was  contracted  by  parties  who  lived  the 
width  of  Greece  apart.  Class-amalgamation  was 
well  on  its  way,  and  lines  which  divided  tribe  from 
tribe  were  fading.  Although  Homer  mentions  no 
term  for  Greece,  yet  the  peoples  who  inhabited  what 
was  later  known  as  Hellas  were  in  many  ways 
fitted  to  bear  the  collective  name  of  Nation.  Patri- 
otism, at  first  merely  the  expression  of  ethnic  unity,2 
had  become  a  broader  and  more  cosmopolitan  feel- 
ing. Had  the  conditions  governing.  Greek  develop- 
ment—the country's  physical  conformation  and  the 
influences  subsequently  brought  to  bear  through  con- 
tinued contact  with  the  East,  among  others  —  per- 
mitted the  authority  of  such  a  king  as  Agamemnon 
to  become  permanent  in  times  of  peace,  Southern 
Greece  might  have  advanced  to  the  more  evolved 
state-functions  of  organisa^on-wars  and  conquest ; 3 
after  centuries  of  petty  strife,  it  was  reserved  to  the 
less  cultured  Macedonia  to  develop  these  functions 
of  statehood  and  to  effect  the  real  conquest  of  the 
East  under  an  unlimited  despot. 

1  XI,  698-702. 

2  Letourneau,  Morale,  240. 

3  Guniplowicz,  Soc,  III,  art.  13  ;  pp.  155-159 ;    Soc.  u.  Polit., 
art.  27  ;  p.  80. 


REFERENCES 


Buchholz,  Homerische  Realien.    3  vols.,  Leipzig,  1871-1885. 
Durkheim,  E.,  Methode  Sociologique.     Paris,  1895. 
Friedreich,   J.   B.,  Realien   in   der  Iliade   und   Odyssee. 

Erlangen,  1851. 
Gladstone,  W.  E.,  Homer  and  the  Homeric  Age.     3  vols., 
Oxford,  1858. 
Juventus  Mundi.     Boston,  1869. 
Guiraud,  P.,  La  Propriete  Fonciere  en  Grece.     Paris,  1893. 
Gumplowicz,  L.,  Grundriss  der  Sociologie.     Wien,  1885. 
Sociologie  und  Politik.     Leipzig,  1892. 
Der  Rassenkampf.     Innsbruck,  1883. 
Rechtsstaat  und  Socialismus.     Innsbruck,  1881. 
Jebb,  R.  C,  Introduction  to  Homer.     Boston,  1887. 
Keane,  A.  H.,  Ethnology.     2d  edit.,  Cambridge,  1896. 
Leaf,   W.,   Companion  to  the  Iliad.     London  and    New 

York,  1892. 
Lehmann,   Alfr.,   Overtro  og    Trolddom.      Kjobenhavn, 
1893-1894  (trans.  Aberglaube   und  Zauberei,  Stutt- 
gart, 1898). 
Letourneau,  Ch.,  The  Evolution  of  Marriage.     London, 
1895. 
L'Evolution  Morale.     Paris,  1887. 
L'Evolution  Politique.     Paris,  1890. 
Property;  Its  Origin  and  Development.     London,  1892. 
Sociologie,  d'apres  l'Ethnographie.     Paris,  1880. 
Lippert,  J.,  Kulturgeschichte.     2  vols.,  Stuttgart,  1886. 
Maspero,  G.,  Dawn  of  Civilisation  (Egypt  and  Chaldsea), 
trans.  McClure;  ed.  Sayce.     New  York,  1894. 
Histoire  Ancienne  des  Peuples  de  POrient.     Paris,  1876. 


316  REFERENCES 

Meyer,  E.,  Geschichte  des  Altertums.     2  vols.,  Stuttgart, 

1884. 
Movers,  F.  C,  Die  Phonizier.     2  vols.,  Bonn,  1841  (vol.  1)  ; 

Berlin,  1849-1856  (vol.  2). 
Naegelsbach,   C.    F.    von,   Homerische   Theologie.      2te 

Aufl.,  bearbeitet  von  G.  Autenrieth.  Niirnberg,  1861. 
Pietschmann,  R.,  Geschichte  der  Phonizier.  Berlin,  1889 
Poehlmann,    R.,  Feldgemeinschaft  bei  Homer.     In  Aus 

Altertum  und  Gegenwart,  Miinchen,  1895. 
Ranke,  J. ,  Der  Mensch.     2  vols.,  Leipzig  und  Wien,  1894. 
Ratzel,  F.,  Volkerkunde.    2  vols.,  2te  Aufl.,  Leipzig  und 

Wien,  1894-1895. 
Ridgeway,  W.,  The  Early  Age  of  Greece.     Vol.  1,  Cam- 
bridge, 1901. 
Seymour,  T.  D.,  Homeric  Language  and  Verse.     Boston, 

1889. 
Iliad  (6  books).     Boston,  1889. 
Speck,  E.,  Handelsgeschichte  des  Altertums.     Erster  Band : 

Die  orientalischen  Volker.     Leipzig,  1900. 
Spencer,  H.,  Principles  of  Sociology.     3  vols.,  New  York, 

1877  (vols.  1  and  2) ;  London,  Edinburgh,  and  Oxford, 

1896  (vol.  3). 
Starcke,  C.  N.,  Primitive  Family.     New  York,  1889. 

Samvittighedslivet.     Vol.  1,  Kjobenhavn,  1894. 
Sumner,  W.  G.,  Unpublished  Lectures.     1895-1901. 
Tylor,  E.  B.,  Anthropology.     New  York,  1893. 
Westermarck,  E.,  History  of  Human  Marriage.     London 

and  New  York,  1891. 
Wilken,  G.  A.,  Vergelijkende  Volkenkunde.     Leiden,  1893. 

Autenrieth's  Homeric  Dictionary  and  Liddell  &  Scott's 
Greek  Lexicon  are  occasionally  referred  to  with  abbrevia- 
tions. 


INDICES 


INDEX  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  PASSAGES 


ILIAD 

I 

Lines 

Pages 

IV 

Lines 

Pages 

206 

252 

Lines 

Pagi 

8 

111 

212ff 

270 

35 

129 

9ff 

126 

212-277 

265 

58-61 

232 

12  ff 

148, 

266 

228 

268 

58  ff 

205 

31 

73 

246  ff 

271 

75-77 

154 

37  ff 

180 

259-260 

236 

102 

131 

39 

45, 

143 

271-277 

264 

190  ff 

179 

50 

37 

300  ff 

160,170 

235 

298 

59-67 

125 

318-319 

155 

293-311 

296 

62 

147 

356 

228 

371 

78 

62-63 

150, 

161 

357-359 

257 

377  ff 

312 

65  ff 

141 

360  ff 

246 

437 

313 

72 

160 

400-401 

146 

478 

244 

74-83 

267 

494 

309 

80  ff 

163 

550-551 

138 

V 

113 

219 

655 

246 

70 

230 

137  ff 

259 

661-666 

284 

88-92 

78 

152  ff 

309 

668 

246 

152-158 

244 

155  ff 

85 

722 

113 

154  ff 

236 

176  ff 

258 

803  ff 

313 

339-342 

108 

193  ff 

259 

813-814 

146 

389 

227 

218 

138 

867 

313 

402 

235 

227  ff 

296 

412  ff 

205 

233  ff 

176 

504 

9 

247  ff 

290 

■ 

[II 

512 

143 

260  ff 

312 

6ff 
69  ff 
76  ff 

3 

166 
297 

642  ff 

84,85 

318ff 
334  ff 

259 
275 

696  ff 

880 

103 

207 

356 

403-404 

423-424 

447-479 

597 

259 

146 

2 

133 

157 

184  ff 
188  ff 
212ff 
240-244 

204 
312 
264 

87 

905 
14-15 

210 

VI 

304 

260-313 

78 

48 

51 

270 

112 

94 

131 

II 

271-272 

153 

145  ff 

307 

8ff 

150 

316 

265 

160  ff 

229 

188  ff 

270 

351-354 

302 

168  ff 

95 

196-197 

258 

351  ff 

229 

178-182 

186 

203-205 

251 

365 

127 

186 

204 

320     INDEX  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  PASSAGES 


Lines 

Pages 

Lines 

Pages 

I    Lines 

Pages 

192 

214 

144  ff 

214 

769-770 

309 

200  ff 

114 

149 

254 

846 

181 

224-225 

308 

157 

213 

235-236 

57 

189 

183 

. 

260-265 

49 

363  ff 

87 

^Vll 

269-270 

130 

365 

51 

199-208 

157 

269-277 

136 

394 

219 

218ff 

157 

289  ff 

74 

404-405 

97,  144 

234-243 

158 

297-311 

136 

410ff 

114 

243 

247 

300 

147 

455  ff 

232 

280 

154 

394 

212 

458-461 

286 

313  ff 

252 

402-403 

235 

478  ff 

238 

421  ff 

192 

526-529 

136 

483-484 
492  ff 

254 
236 

433-435 

84 

VI 

499 

130 

XII 

39  ff 

166 

533-549 

135 

5-6 

2,47 

44-53 

161 

534  ff 

127 

623-627 

302 

76  ff 

121 

566  ff 

202,  284 

660-661 

307 

83 

142 

574-575 

147 

671-672 

103 

171  ff 

165 

592-594 

221 

793 

313 

193-196 

114 

632-636 

285 

219-223 

62 

647-648 

275 

XIV 

243-250 
274-282 
314  ff 
345-379 
372  ff 

71 
275 
136 
266 
275 

X 

15-16 

68-69 
196-197 

129 
237 
270 

215ff 
246  ff 
271-276 
296 
333  ff 
347-351 

173 
204 
176 
205 
209 
109 

375  ff 
467  ff 

297 
96 

266-267 
292-294 

287 
131 

470-471 

92 

343 

271 

478-481 

153 

351 

193 

XV 

415 

168 

187  ff 

197 

VII 

420  ff 

313 

252 

103 

186  ff 

35 

318ff 

173 

290-291 

97 

XI 

357 

78 

306 

40 

53-55 

154 

394 

179 

368 

105 

67  ff 

192 

466-470 

153 

378 

78 

124 

100 

627 

83 

404-405 

180 

139-141 

100 

679-684 

36 

553 

78 

160 
192-194 

78 
158 

737-738 

296 

EX 

223  ff 

232 

Xvi 

31  ff 

263 

225  ff 

205 

58-59 

275 

63-64 

246 

514-515 

181 

114  ff 

153 

73 

195 

558-562 

37 

180  ff 

234 

97-102 

252 

677  ff 

293 

233-235 

145 

115  ff 

287 

682  ff 

99 

385-388 

291 

120  ff 

213 

698-702 

314 

407 

48,  169 

INDEX  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  PASSAGES    321 


Lines 

441 

459-460 

504-505 

538  ff 

606-607 

779 


Pages 
128 
154 
103 
313 
103 
33 


XVII 

92-93  309 

126-127  117 

142  ff  313 

150  ff  307 

225-226  313 

301-302  244 

425  9 

547-550  154 

711  62 


XVIII 


122 

349-353 

417-421 

438 

497-508 

541-560 

541  ff 

550-572 

561-572 

600-601 

607-609 


74 
118 
174 

42 
286,291 

44 

192,  195 
195 

42 

64 
9 


XIX 


118 
271 
238 
287 
177 

297-299  219 
404-417  160 
404  ff      170 


39 

42-45 
100  ff 
249  ff 
250-268 


XX 

Lines  Pages 

61-65  106 

221  33 

427  78 


XXI 


42 

95 

100-105 

130-132 

132 

243-246 

281 

320-323 

391  ff 

405 

444-457 


307 
206 
283 
130 
170 
78 
117 
117 
295 
192 

85,  254, 
288 


XXII 


26-31 

49  ff 

69 

74-76 

88 

124 

169  ff 

199 

254-261 

338 

346-347 

371-375 

393-394 

467  ff 

470  ff 

477  ff 

489 

506-507 

509 

509-513 


154,180 
213 
38 
117 
212 
285 
138 
152 
288 
234 
129 
118 
182 
103 
217 
227 

192,197 
235 
117 
121 


XXIII 


Lines 


Pages 


50-51 

119 

65-67 

119 

65-69 

104 

69  ff 

112 

85-88 

285 

85-90 

238 

100  ff 

104 

132-141 

120 

144  ff 

129 

147 

131 

175-176 

129 

176 

120 

222-223 

236 

265-266 

37 

281-282 

35 

296  ff 

309 

703-705 

97 

744-745 

92 

832  ff 

44,  55,  88 

880 

103 

XXIV 

46-47 

206 

46-54 

284 

53-54 

119 

66-70 

127,  138 

80 

57 

112  ff 

285 

212 

129 

218-219 

158 

221 

147 

303-307 

139 

382 

313 

409 

117 

420-421 

118 

486  ff 

234 

488-489 

196 

525-526 

115 

592-595 

120 

656-804 

120 

734-737 

283 

762  ff 

228 

21 


INDEX  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  PASSAGES 


Pages 


22  ff 

2 

32-34 

111 

47 

230 

65-67     124, 127, 13 

120  ff 

299 

170 

218 

216 

206 

231  ff 

222 

234-241 

117 

260-261 

88 

260-263 

298 

261  ff 

60 

275-278 

215 

289  ff 

121 

298 

203 

298-299 

284 

309-313 

311 

390-393 

253 

416 

274 

430-431 

96,97 

ii 

6ff 

261 

25  ff 

255 

48 

242 

52-53 

226 

52-54 

215 

60-61 

240 

130  ff 

216 

131 

226 

135-136 

227 

143-145 

224 

155  ff 

160 

181-182 

158 

186 

100 

223 

215 

225  ff 

274 

ODYSSEY 

Lines 

Pages 

Lines 

226-227 

243 

85-89 

434 

86 

125  ff 

164-165 

174-177 

iii 

181 

2 

9 

207  ff 

34-41 

300 

229-232 

47-48 

124 

252-253 

71-74 

93 

274-275 

127 

263 

277 

136  ff 

265 

351-352 

159  ff 

87 

351  ff 

195  ff 

284 

360  ff 

196  ff 

236 

377-380 

244 

290 

412 

249  ff 

284 

455  ff 

255  ff 

203,  226 

472-480 

258-261 

117 

502  ff 

265-266 

230 

525-526 

267 

274 

561  ff 

267  ff 

243 

582-586 

284-285 

122 

584 

303  ff 

228 

617-619 

304-305 

224 

635-637 

309-310 

123 

635  ff 

366-368 

99 

796 

404-472 

133 

798 

406-412 

169 

809 

432 

80 

432  ff 

272 

464-468 

210 

35 

iv 

44-46 

3ff 

217 

120 

5 

89 

212-218 

5-7 

214 

246-247 

11-12 

230 

270  ff 

28-36 

300 

307 

49  ff 

210 

346-350 

INDEX  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  PASSAGES    323 


lines 

371 
488-490 


PAGK8 
36 

49 


15-19  209 

25  ff  214 

109  209 

119-121  305 

126  ff  209 

136  ff  209 

162-163  41 

205  27 

270-272  27 

288  218 


59-77 

205 

63  ff 

205 

65  ff 

232 

103  ff 

281 

114-128 

42 

153-154 

168 

163-165 

26 

191 

26 

203-205 

26 

205-206 

2,3 

313-314 

213 

viii 

5-6 

260 

31 

27 

75-78 

258 

79-81 

144 

124 

193 

159-164 

93,2 

208-211 

302 

223-224 

59 

246-249 

27 

265 

27 

266  ff 

229 

284 

3 

306  ff 

232 

317-318 

214 

332 

231 

332  ff 

209 

347  ff 

288 

351  ff 

99 

Lines 
389-399 
391 

546-547 
557  ff 
559  ff 


58 

84  ff 

94-97 

106  ff 

130-135 

166  ff 

184  ff 

187-189 

196ff 

209 

219-223 

252-255 

267-268 

270-271 

275  ff 

294-295 

355  ff 

383-386 

391  ff 

478-479 

507-510 

527  ff 


7 

81  ff 

82  ff 
2l0ff 
492-495 
508-515 
512  ff 
513-514 
517ff 
522 


13-19 
13-22 
23  ff 
25  ff 


Pages 


304 


254 
269 
300 
174 
27 


33 

3 

46 

,249, 

40 

298 

66 

3 

148 

48 

3 

93 

311 

302 

3 

305 

3 

58 

53,56 
305 
163 
141 


205,  232 
298,  304 

3 
174 
106 
105 
174 
112 
123 
131 


3 
105 
174 
123 


Lines 

27-28 

74 

90-150 

108-109 

122-128 

147  ff 

184-186 

206-208 

2I3ff 

218-222 

235  ff 

271  ff 

277-278 

279-280 

288-290 

301-304 

311  ff 

338  ff 

346  ff 

385-386 

387-388 

399-403 

405  ff 

422 

489-491 

491 

492  ff 

494-503 

568-571 

572-575 

576-600 

601-602 

601  ff 

605  ff 

623-626 

634-635 


Pages 

139 

112 

106 

170 
3 

105 

195 

104 
203 

104 
108 
232 
288 
202 
293 
106 
235 
205 
254 
203 
104 
293 
220 
220 

45,  275 
104 
236 
196 

104,  106, 
291 

29,  104 
106 
106 

29 
106 
105 
203 


39  ff  304 

89  ff  186 

105-106  66 

167  ff  186 

235 ff  186 

245  ff  304 

262  ff  170 

343-347  128 

357-363  131 


324     INDEX  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  PASSAGES 


Lines 

394-396 

439-440 


Pages 
156 
289, 291 


xm 

14-15  254 

57  ff  205 

107-108  66 

123-124  288 

163  ff  155,163 

200-202  289, 305 

417  127 


29-38 

45-47 

56-58 

62-63 

62-67 

70-71 

96-104 

100-102 

100  ff 

158-159 

200  ff 

208-210 

211-213 

238-239 

239 

288-289 

283  ff 

316  ff 

327-328 

327-330 

386-389 

388-389 

420-448 

449-452 

495 

531 


37 
299 

302,  304 
214 
279 
309 

98 
198 
311 

168,  302 
237 
197 
213 
310 
259 

91 

15 
277 

160,171 
145 
302 
304 
135 
279 
151 

37 


xv 


80-85  311 

223  ff  163,164 

245-246  160 

272  ff  246,  284 

329  9 

376-379  279 


Lines 

403-484 

415  ff 

416 

419 

459-460 


Pages 
91,92 
86 
15 
91 
54 


383-385 


18  87 

115  ff  242 

159-163  169 

211-212  116 

381-382  286 

401-402  286 

424-430  313 

424 ff  254 

426  ff  88 

xvii 

216  276 

250  276 

308-310  38 

321-323  281 

365  157 

163,  272, 

183 

483-487  302 

485-487  304 

518-520  183 

541-546  155 

565  9 

xviii 

5  206 

44-45  50 

85  ff  298 

130-131  115 

184ff  209 

267  ff  239 

269-270  215,224 

290  ff  212 

294-295  54 

328  80, 81 

374  193 

xix 

111  252 

134-135  299 


Lines  Pages 

141  ff  214 

278-286  311 

399-412  235 

414  ff  244 

456-460  180 

457-458  174 

528-529  215 

533-534  223 

536-558  152 

547  152 

562  151 

563  72 


xx 

18  188 

25-27  50 

66-78  114 

87-90  152 

100  ff  155 

120-121  155 

123  ff  49 

187-188  311 

201-202  127 

342  223 

345-357  156 

355-356  161 


16-21 

27-29 

34-37 

74-79 

175  ff 

213-216 

214 

214-216 

258  ff 

350  ff 

395 


99 
305 
306 
216 
281 
196 
214 

273, 279 
138 
225 

59 


xxn 
55  ff  287 

345-348  183 
465-477  192 
475-478         281 


INDEX  OF  REPRESENTATIVE  PASSAGES    325 


Lines 

50-51 

178ff 

189  ff 

211-212 

223 

267  ff 

281-284 

356-358 


xxm 

Pages 
112 
68,69 
72 
114 
279 
137 
114 
293 


Lines 

1-10 

12 

87-92 

111-112 

115-119 

226-227 

279 

294 


Pages 
104 
151 
121 
293 
309 
42 
311 
212 


Lines 

Pages 

336-344 

42 

420  ff 

261 

430-431 

284 

482-486 

298 

482  ff 

241 

534  ff 

298 

SUBJECT    INDEX 


Adoption,  236,  238 

Adultery,  214,  227-231,  280,  287 

JEgh,  31,  173 

jEgisthus,  136,  226 

iEolus,  205 

Affection,  219-220,234 

Agamemnon,  256-259,  268,  312 

Aged,  177,  244-245 

Agency,  110-111 

Agore.     See  Assembly. 

Agricultural  processes,  44 

Agriculture,  31,  39 

Aliens,  275 

Alliances,  312-313.     See  Trojan 

expedition. 
Altar,  68,  143 
Amalgamation,  ethnic,  250-251, 

306,312,314 
Amazons,  204 
Ambush,  296 
Anthropomorphism,  1 08-1 09,1 1 6, 

124 
Arbitration,  285-286,  289-291 
Arete,  205-206 

Arms  and  armour,  58,  63,  68-73 
Asceticism,  144,  161 
Assembly,  256,  259-262,  264  ff 
Augury,  148,  151 
Auspices,  156-159 

B 

Banking,  97 

Banning  of  ghosts,  105,  112 
Bards,  182-185,  274 
Bargain-sacrifice,    123,    126-128, 

140 
Barter,  96 

Basileus,  268-269.     See  King. 
Beggar,  275  ff,  301 


Blood,  105,  175 
Blood-rain,  154 
Boiling,  49,  50 
Bone  and  horn,  72 
Booty.     See  War. 
Boule.     See  Council. 
Boundaries,  193,  197 
Bow,  58-60,  106 
Bribery,  266 
Bridge,  78 

Brotherhoods,  175,  179,300,306- 
308 


Camp,  79 

Cannibalism,  129-130 
Caste,  147,  164 
Cattle- raising,  30,  39 
Ceremony  (in  marriage),  213, 216 
Chaldaeans,  7,  107,  113,  175,  186 
Chalkos,  50,  52 
Chariot,  61-62 
Charm,  174,  180 
Chastity,  209 
Children,  210,  226,  233  ff 
Children's  food,  47 
Clothing,  74-75 
Clytaemnestra,  220,  226,  230 
Collective  undertakings,  77 
Colour,  75,  76 
Communications,  88,  89 
Communism,  192,  195 
Commutation  (of  talion),  284-286 
Concubines,   220-221,  279.     See 

Wife  (chief). 
Confederation,  256 
Contempt  for  merchant-class,  93 
Contract,  84,  85,  91, 126-128, 142, 

288 
Cooking,  49 


328 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


Copper,  23.     See  Chalkos. 
Cosmology,  9,  185 
Council,  256,  262  ff 
Counting,  94 
"Cow-eyed,"  170 
Craftsmen,  80,  85,  271 
Cremation,  117,  119 
Crime.     See  Homicide,  etc. 
Cult,  112,  116 

Cult-animals  and  plants,  169-170 
Cult-implements,  137-138,  140 
Cult-language,  146 
Cult-selection,  34,  41,  170 
Curiosity,  304.     See  Bards. 
Curse,  141-142,  176 
Cyclopes,  2-3,  58,  162 


Daimon,  109-110 
Daimonology,  1 10-1 1 1 
Date-palm,  41,  43 
Dead,  duties  to,  116-123 
Dead  body,  maltreatment  of,  118, 

129 
"Dead  hand,"  138,  145 
Death,  101,  103,  106 
Death-like  states,  101,  103 
"  Debt,"  98-99 
Deception  of  gods,  134 
Degeneracy,  292 
Dike,  289-292 
Dikes  and  dams,  78 
Discipline,    252,    258-259,    267, 

282,  295 
Divers,  84 

Divorce.     See  Repudiation. 
Dodona,  144-145 
Dog,  29,  32,  38,  105,  117,   120- 

121,  130,  169-170 
Domestication,  9,  19,  20,  39,  89 
Dream-interpreters,  1 52 
Dreams,  150-152 
Drill,  58 
Drugs,  172,  173 
Dualism,  103,  106 
Duel,  165-166 
Dveing,  74,  76 
Dynasty,  211,  218,  219,  225 


Echetus,  298 

Egyptians,  7,  8,  63,  107,  181, 186 

Eidolon,  103,  151 

Elektros,  53 

Elysium,  106-107 

Embalming,  117-118 

Emblems  (royal),  255 

Envy  of  gods,  77,  114-115 

Erinyes,  202-203 

Eumaeus,  91-92 

Evils  of  life,  115 

Exiles,  273,  284-286,  301 

Exorcism,  113 


Fate,  128,  187 

Eee,  291 

Fertilisation,  44 

Festival,  138 

Fetich,  143,  166-172 

Feudalism,  194-195,  196,  199 

Fines,  99,  231,  288 

Fire,  49,  112,  117,246 

First-fruits,  127 

Fish,  48,  169 

Fishing,  30 

Food,  45  ff.     See  "  Old  "  foods. 

Force-guarantees,    190,  196-198, 

240,  241,  252,  268 
Fortification,  77,  78 
"Foundation-sacrifice,"  178 
Fowls,  38,  39 
Fruit-trees,  41-45 
Funeral,  117-123 
Furniture,  71-72 


Games,  298,  314 
Geese,  151 
Gens,  245,  248 
Geography,  3,  86 
Geras,  268 
Gerontes,  260,  290 
Goats,  31,33 

Gods,  107-110,  124  ff,  160 
Gold,  23 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


329 


Grains,  36,  40,  45 
"Grave-following-,"  120,  121 
Groves,  145 

Guest-friendship,    89,    97,    229 
299  ff 


H 

Habitations,  66 
Hades,  105 
Hearth,  69,  143,  168 
Hephaestus,  81,  272-273 
Heracles,  29,  59,  106 
Heralds,  255,  274-275 
Hetairoi,  270,  273-276,  282 
Hippomolgoi,  2 
Homer,  183  ff 
Homicide,  283-286 
Honey,  46,  131-132 
Horse,  34,  130,  131,  160,  170 
Hospitality.      See    Guest-friend- 
ship. 
Household  utensils,  63-64 
Human  sacrifice,  120,  129 
Hunting,  29 


Ideograms,  95-96 

Illegitimacy,  234,  237-238 

Incense,  130 

Incest,  204-205,  232-233 

Industrial  organisation,  6 

Infancy,  234-235 

Infanticide,  233 

Inhericance,    194,    195,    196-198. 

225 
Insurance,  124,  127-128 
Iron,  44 
Irrigation,  9,  45 
Ivory,  72 


Jealousy,  220,  230 
Jewels,  54 
Judge,  289-291 

"  Justification,"  2,  125,  127,135, 
139,  166,  289 


K 

Kassiteros,  53 

King,  98,  150,  193-194,  222,252- 

259,  262-264,  266-268 
Kyanos,  53 


Land,  property  in,  192  ff 

Law,  282.     See  Themistes. 

Leather,  72,  82,  83 

Levies  (roval),  254,  268 

Libation,  i39-140,  153 

Lighting,  69 

"  Long-house,"  70 

Loom,  66,  73 

Lot,  165 

Lotus-eaters,  3 

Luck,  114-116,  128-129,  137 


M 

Magic,  109,  172-175 

"Mai,"  168,  260 

Manufactures,  50 

Marriage  and  property,  200,  226- 

227 
Marriage-ceremonies,  216-218 
"  Matriarchate,"  201-207 
Meat,  46 

Mercenaries,  313 
Metallic  processes,  55,  57 
Metals,  50,  55 
Metanastai,  275 
Milk,  33,  47-48 
Miracles,  155-156,  175 
Monarchy,  251 
Money,  96-97 
Monogamy,  "  juridic,"  218 
Morals.  228,  230-231 
Mores,  250 

Motherhood,  225-226 
Mourning,  113,  121 
Movers,  F.  C.,  ix,  11 
Mules,  37 
Mythical  tribes,  2,  4 


330 


SUBJECT   INDEX 


Name,  113,  167,  206 
Naming,  235 
Narcotics,  40,  77 
Nationalisation,  299 
Necromancy,  174 
Nemesis,  115 
Nobles,  256,  268-270 


Oak,  145,  160,  170-171 

Oaths,  175-179 

Ocean  stream,  105,  107 

CEdipus,  232 

Oil,  73,  75,  76 

"  Old  "  foods,  47,  48, 132,  140, 171 

Omens,  141,  152-160 

Oracle,  144-145 

Oratory,  264 

Ordeals,  165-166,  178 

Orestes,  122-123,  203,  284 

Oriental  influence,  viii,  4,  24,  96, 

303-304 
Orion,  29,  58 
Ornament,  74,  75 
"  Otherworldliness,"     104,      107, 

117-120 
"Owl-eved,"  170 
Ox,  33/96-97,  131 


Passenger-carrying,  30,  92 
Patria  potestas,  214 
Patriarchate,  30,  31,  207  ff 
Patroclus,  118-120 
Patronymics,  235,237 
Peace-bond,  248,  252-253 
Peculium,  279 
Penelope,  222-226 
People,  the,  267,  270-271 
Perfume,  75 
Perjurv,  298 
Phaeaclans,  26,  27,  205 
Phoenicians,  10, 28,  43,  64 

as  culture-carriers,  6,  18,  24 


commerce   and    commercial 

methods,  13,  24 
influence  of,  81,  89-92,  207 
religion  of,  17 
Physicians,  179-181 
Piracy,  92-93 
Pitch,  76 
Poetry,  182-185 
Poison  (for  weapons),  60,  298 
Polygamy,  218 
Poor  and  rich,  97-98 
"Possession,"  110,  160 
Potter's  wheel,  64 
Pottery,  83 
Prayer,  140-142,  148 
Precedent,  289-292 
Priestess,  135 

Priests,  132,  133,  145-149,  185 
Primogeniture,  197,  238 
Prcetus,  95-96 
Professions.     See  Smiths,  Bards, 

Physicians,  etc. 
Property-guarantees,  226-227 
Property-right,   190 
Prophecy  and  prophets,  150-164, 

170,  274 
Propitiation,  115-116,  124  ff 
Proteus,  25 
Pseudo-knowledge,  179-181, 185- 

186 
Public  opinion,  259,  264,  286 
Punishments,  288 
Pygmies,  3 
Pytho,  144 


Rainhow,  154 

nationalisation,  111,  128,187-188 
Redemption,  130 
Relationship,  245 
Religion,  6.  16,  149,  186-188 
Re-marriage.     See  Widow. 
Repudiation,  223,  226-227,  231- 

232 
Resignation,  187-188 
Retainers,  194.     See  Hetairoi. 
I  Right  and  left,  154,  156-157,  158 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


331 


Rights,  124,  225 
Ritual,  137 
Roads,  78 
Roasting,  49 
Round  numbers, 


6 


1-172 


Sacrifices,  116,  120,  123  ff,  140 

Sailors,  83-84 

Salt,  47 

Sceptre,  255,  260 

Scvlla  and  Charybdis,  86 

"  Second-sight,"  161 

Serpents,  170 

Settlements,  79,  80 

Sexes,  relations  of,  208-211 

Shame,  209-210 

Sheep,  3 1 ,  33 

Shepherds,  32 

Shield  of  Achilles,  44 

Ships   and    shipping,  18,  26,  27, 

64-65,  82,  86-88 
Sickness  and  the    sick,  112-113, 

179-180 
Siege,  296-297 
Silence,  113,  115,  141 
Silver,  23 

Sin,  125-126,  135,136,  232 
Sisyphus,  106 
Slavery  and  slaves,  191-192,  196, 

277-281,  286,  293-294 
Slave-trade,  21,  90 
Sleep  and  dreams,  101,  105 
Smiths,  80,  81,  90,  272 
Sneezing,  154 
Snow,  154 
Song,  120,  133 
Sons,  223-226,  236 
Soul,  102-105 
Spinning  and  weaving,  73 
Spirit- world,  104,  105-107,  203 
Sponges,  71,  77 
Stars,  154 
Statue,  144 
Stone  and  stone-working,  66,  70, 

7 1 ,  82-83 
Stranger.     See  Guest-friendship. 


Suicide,  288 

Succession,  225-226,  237-244 
Suitors,  The,  222-226,  240-241 
Sulphur,  137,  180 
Sumner,  W.  G.,  vii 
Suppliants,  301 
Swine,  31,  33,  130 
Syngenism,  249,  292,  298 


Tabu,  134,  137,  167, 193,  275 

Tactics,  295-296 

Talion,  283  ff 

Tantalus,  106 

Tekton,  81-82 

Telemachus,  223-224,  239-242 

Temenos,  193-196 

Tempering,  56 

"Temples,"  136,  143  ff 

Textiles,  73 

Thank-offerings,  136 

Theft,  227-229,  287 

Themistes,  252,  289-292 

Therapeutics,  179-181 

Threshold,  168 

Thunder,  154,  155 

Tin,  23.     See  Kassiteros. 

"  77s,"  264 

Tityus,  106 

Tombs,  121,  122,  168  ff 

Tools,  55,  57 

Towns.     See  Settlements. 

Trade,  85 

contempt  for,  272 
Travel,  307 

•♦Trial,"  285-286,  290-291 
Tribe,  245-247 
Troglodytes,  66 

Trojan  expedition,  256,  309-310 
Trojans,  295,  313 
Trophies,  142 
Truce,  177 


Values,  97 
Vegetables,  40,  46 
Venality,  99-100 


332 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


Vengeance,    118-119, 

310.     See  Talion. 
Victims,  130-131 
Vines,  41-45 
Vows.     See  Prayers. 


W 


121,    308- 


Wages  and  wage-earners,  45,  77, 

84-85,  275 
Wagon,  63  *\ 

Wand,  172 
War,  292-299 
Waste  (funeral),  120,    123;   129, 

134,  138-439 
Water,    48,    112,    131,    132,   137, 

139,  141,  180 
Wax,  76 
Wealth,  98 
Weapons,  58-62 
Weights  and  measures,  93-94 


Widow,  214-216,  222-227 
Wife  (chief),  211,  212,  213,  216, 
218-220,  226-229,  237 
purchase  of,  212-215 
Wine,  48-49,  131,139-140 
Woman,   position   of,   135,  221- 

227,  243,  259 
Wonder-tales,  26,  43,  47,  56,  86 
Woodworking,  57,  82 
"Word,"  114,  171 
Work- animals,  131 
Wounds,  179  > 

Writing,  94-96 


Xeinoi,  198 


Zeus  Xeinios. 
ship. 


See  Guest-friend. 


RETl 


HOME  USE 

CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

MAIN  LIBRARY 

This  h..R  is  due  on  the  *t*£  *■#$&. 


rED 


or 


3  4 


— 


Berkeley 


(E4555sf0)~476B 


University  of  California 
Berkeley 


